JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

section 11 & 12 of IT Act. Assessee trust also did not furnish anything regarding application for condonation of delay moved to appropriate authority in the department for delay in furnishing audit report. Therefore, on this account also, assessee trust is not eligible for any exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. 4.4 The learned AO also enquired about spending

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY,ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B before the Appropriate Authorities and has totally overlooked the observations of the various Higher Courts that even if Form No. 10B is filed at a later stage before the A.O. or before the Appellate Authorities, it would be sufficient compliance with requirements of section 12A(1

RANIWALA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

delay in verification of Form No. 10DA, which is otherwise uploaded well in time can be made basis for disallowance, on procedural ground, or not. It is observed that the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) - 6, Mumbairelied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)Principal Commissioner of Income-taxvs.Wipro

SETH RB MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BANI PARK ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condoned the delay in filling an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the issue is required to be decided on its merits before us the ld. DR stated that same be remitted to ld. AO or that of the CIT(A). On the other hand ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the decision

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

delay of 14 days is condoned. 4 JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY VS CIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 4.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, brief facts of the case are the assessee society is registered under Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1958 w.e.f. 07.09.1999 (PB 22) with the main objective of imparting education (PB 23-29). It is registered

RAJASTHAN NURSING COUNCIL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

10B was filed within the due date where the amount of set apart claimed in the return under section 11(2) was separately mentioned. 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law as well as in facts in not giving due regard to the circular no. 6/2020 dated 19.02.2020 and circular no. 173/193/2019-ITA-1 dated 23.04.2019 issued by the CBDT

SUNIL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 6(5), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

10B was filed within the due date where the amount of set apart claimed in the return under section 11(2) was separately mentioned. 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law as well as in facts in not giving due regard to the circular no. 6/2020 dated 19.02.2020 and circular no. 173/193/2019-ITA-1 dated 23.04.2019 issued by the CBDT

ENOCHY CHILDREN RELIEF SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B and to claim the benefits of section 11 and 12 of the Act. 6.9 Hence, I find no merit in the current appeal, grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.’’ Since we have restored the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 to the file

ENOCHY CHILDREN RELIEF SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B and to claim the benefits of section 11 and 12 of the Act. 6.9 Hence, I find no merit in the current appeal, grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.’’ Since we have restored the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 to the file

TAGORE SHIKSHA SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 119(2) of the Act. 6.15 In order to get entitlement for claiming exemption of its income u/s 11 of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the appellant to file the Form No. 10B or get a condonation of delay in filing the Form 10B from the CIT(E), Jaipur, without which the AO cann

DCIT, CIRCLE EXEMPTION JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. STATE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, JAIPR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation for Audit Reports & for accumulation in form 10&10B, while ld. CIT(A) does not have any right for same" iv. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing accumulation under 11(2), while there was not conscious accumulation by assesse, no earmarking fund

KINKINI,BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

Section 11 of the Act. However, due to delayed filing 3 Kinkini Bhilwara of Form 10BB the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) denied assessee claim of exemption while processing its return u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and determined income at Rs.18,49,950/-. The same , it was pointed out, was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stating that neither

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

delay in filing the cross objection and the same is hereby condoned and the cross objection so filed by the assessee trust is admitted for adjudication. 6. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that the provisions of section 147, being prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, are safeguarded by certain preconditions. In the present case

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

condone the delay in filing Form No.10. 4. The Ld CIT(A) as well as Ld DCIT(Exemption) erred in considering that, when Rs. 7,15,36,230/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. 5. The Ld. DCIT has erred

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

condone the delay in filing Form No.10. 4. The Ld CIT(A) as well as Ld DCIT(Exemption) erred in considering that, when Rs. 7,15,36,230/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. 5. The Ld. DCIT has erred

AMRITA SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. MSt. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3.1 The only issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal relates to disallowing the set apart fund under section 11 (2) and section 11(5) of the Act on account

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

delay of 178 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

delay of 178 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay. 5. As regards the matter in appeal, we note that the same is against order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. At the outset, in this case, Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the notice to the assessee u/s. 263 of the Act in these case, was issued by letter dated