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)

section 13(1)(c) can be charged to tax at MMR but exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied in toto. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 28,51,300/- by holding that the following amount paid to persons specified u/s 13(3) is unreasonable and unjustified

AAGAZ SAMAJIK VIKAS SANSTHA ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.809 & 810/Jpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : - Aagaz Samajik Vikas The Commissioner Of Sanstha, V Income Tax, 45A/69, Near Office Lane, S Exemption, Jaipur. Behind Rainbow Jewellers, Jagdish Colony, Ramgarh Mode, Jaipur – 302002. Pan: Aaeaa5124E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ajey Malik – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Jaipur Both Dated 25.02.2023. The Assessee In Ita No.809/Jpr/2023 Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :

delay wherein assessee has not submitted supporting documents of his plea of being abroad supported by copy of the relevant pages of the passport and for medical grounds supported by the relevant medical records for assessee in the condonation to be granted. During the course of today hearing, AR of assessee has neither filed adjournment application nor appeared before

AAGAZ SAMAJIK VIKAS SANSTHA ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.809 & 810/Jpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : - Aagaz Samajik Vikas The Commissioner Of Sanstha, V Income Tax, 45A/69, Near Office Lane, S Exemption, Jaipur. Behind Rainbow Jewellers, Jagdish Colony, Ramgarh Mode, Jaipur – 302002. Pan: Aaeaa5124E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ajey Malik – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Jaipur Both Dated 25.02.2023. The Assessee In Ita No.809/Jpr/2023 Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :

delay wherein assessee has not submitted supporting documents of his plea of being abroad supported by copy of the relevant pages of the passport and for medical grounds supported by the relevant medical records for assessee in the condonation to be granted. During the course of today hearing, AR of assessee has neither filed adjournment application nor appeared before

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

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

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)

C-Scheme, Jaipur. CPC, Bangalore. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAR 8632 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Tarun Agarwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/02/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 vkns

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)

C-Scheme, Jaipur. CPC, Bangalore. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAR 8632 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Tarun Agarwal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/02/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 vkns

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

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

12A, filed its return of income declaring income of certain amount - Assessee had not furnished audit report in Form No.10B - Thus, Assessing Officer denied exemption to assessee trust - Thereafter, assessee filed audit report in Form No. 10B belatedly and sought to condone such delay - Same wasrejected for reason that no ground for condonation of delay was made out by assessee

BLOSSOM,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 29/05/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee arising

GO GRAM ECO FOUNDATION,GOVINDGARH TEHSIL CHOMU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

C. Parwal (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 04/10/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 28 /11/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur has erred in withdrawing the registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(Exemptions) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

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)

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

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:

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

SHRI JAIN SHWETAMBER TERAPANTHI VIDYALAYA COMMITTEE,STATION ROAD, PURANI SADAK vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CIT EXEMPTION JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Jain Shwetamber Terapanthi Vidyalaya Committee, Station Road Churu, Rajasthan - 331001 Pan No.:Aaots0584M ...... Appellant Vs. Cit Exemption, Jaipur, Kailash Height, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur ...... Respondent

c) in any other case, from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made.] 4. We do not observe that any of the condition as prescribed in section 80G (5) of the Act has not been fulfilled by the assessee trust. Now in the light of the provisions of section

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

1-3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. • The period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

1-3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. • The period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), 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)

condone the delay 480 days in filing the appeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others 167 ITR 471(SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and inclined to decide the appeal on its merits. 3. The assessee has raised following

SHRI PARNAMI PANCHAYAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

c) This ITAT decision can have no binding force against the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Shreee Shyam Mandir Committee (Supra). 3.2. It is humbly submitted that the order relied upon by Id. DR cannot be applied, for the above reasons, on the present case of the Assessee. It is also submitted that author of the said