UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.775 to 778/JP/2024 Uttrakhand Samaj 51/117 Sec 5, Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Jaipur cuke Vs. The CIT, Exemption Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATU 6874 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@D

iii) of first proviso to sub section (5) of section 80G of the Act within the period time period of at least six months prior to expiry of period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. Ld. CIT(E) also noted that he did has power to condone such Uttrakhand Samaj

RAJ RISHI BHARTRIHARI MATSYA UNIVERSITY ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALWAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed\nfor statistical purpose

iii) of first\nproviso to sub section (5) of section 80G of the Act, it is evident that the\ntime limits prescribed therein is mandatory and commissioner of Income\nTax has no power to condone the delay

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

iii) of third proviso to section 80G(5) was applicable only to newly constructed trust and not to old trust, delay in filing Form No.10AB deserved to be condoned

VARDHMAN SATHANAKVASI JAIN SRAVAK SANGH,AJMER vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

iii) of third proviso to section 80G(5) was applicable only to newly constructed trust and not to old trust, delay in filing Form No.10AB deserved to be condoned

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)

delay of more than six months should not be considered as violation of section 80G (5)(iii) according to which application under section 80G 5(iii) is to be filed within six months of commencement of activities or six months before expiry of the provisional registration, whichever is earlier." In response of the notice the A/r of the applicant submitted

PARITRUPTI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

iii) of the proviso to section 80G(5) provides that where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, it shall make an application for permanent registration within 6 months of commencement of its activities. 6. In the present case, there is a delay of approximately 5 months ( Form 30.09.2022 to 01.03.2023 )from the extended date of filing the application

RAKSHA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(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 in filling the appeal by the assessee. 4. Apropos to the ground so raised by the assessee the ld. CIT(E) rejected the assesee’s claim of exemption u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:- “The applicant filed application on 21.04.2022 in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under clause (ii) of first proviso

SURAJ NARAYAN PAREEK KSHIKSHA SAMITI,PUSHKAR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

delay of 65 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), the reason being that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted to be decided

SAMYAK GYAN PRACHAR PRASAR TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT 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)

iii) of 3rd proviso of section 80G(5) of the Act, and hence the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. 2. Under the Facts, Circumstances and legal position of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in rejecting

DHYAN YOG GAU-SEVA SOCIETY,DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

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

iii) of the proviso to section 80G(5) provides that where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, it shall make an application for permanent registration within 6 months of commencement of its activities. In the present case there is a delay of about 2.5 months from the extended date of filing the application for obtaining the permanent registration

PREM SAMRIDDHI FOUNDATION,BUNDI vs. ITO WARD, BUNDI, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n03/12/2024

condoned the delay of 491 days in filing the appeal, citing the technical glitches faced by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the matter required re-examination by the CIT(E) to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the applicability of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and its registration under the Companies Act.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["80G(5)(iii

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

iii) of the first proviso, from the first of the assessment years for which such institution or fund was provisionally approved; (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

VED- VACHASPATI SHASTRI CHARITABLE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal is disposed of and the application u/s 80G of the Act, filed in Form 10AB, is restored to

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, till 30.06.2024.” It is true that the impugned order came to be passed even before the above-said circular was issued. But, it is significant to note that vide above- said circular, CBDT went on to issue directions in cases where any trust, institution

BLOSSOM,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e.. 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

SHRI SHANIDEV CHARITABLE TRUST,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeals are hereby dismissed being barred by limitation

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur By Way Of Two Application I.E. One U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act ( In Short “The Act”) To Seek Its Registration. Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer. Another Application Were Also Presented By The Applicant Before Learned Cit(E) Seeking Approval U/S 80G Of The Act.

80G of the Act. 2. Vide two separate orders of same date i.e. 29.11.2024, Learned CIT(E) rejected both the application for the reasons recorded therein. That is how, the impugned orders are challenged by the applicant trust. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the above said two applications, the applicant Trust presented before this Appellate Tribunal, two separate

SHRI SHANIDEV CHARITABLE TRUST,AJMER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeals are hereby dismissed being barred by limitation

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Jaipur By Way Of Two Application I.E. One U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act ( In Short “The Act”) To Seek Its Registration. Shri Shanidev Charitable Trust, Ajmer. Another Application Were Also Presented By The Applicant Before Learned Cit(E) Seeking Approval U/S 80G Of The Act.

80G of the Act. 2. Vide two separate orders of same date i.e. 29.11.2024, Learned CIT(E) rejected both the application for the reasons recorded therein. That is how, the impugned orders are challenged by the applicant trust. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the above said two applications, the applicant Trust presented before this Appellate Tribunal, two separate

SHRI OP DARGAR FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

condonation of\ndelay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also\nfiled an affidavit also :-\n“1. That assessee-company is a Section 8 company and filed 4 appeals\non 05.10.2024 against the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT\n(Exemption), Jaipur on rejection of registration u/s. 12A & rejection of\napproval u/s. 80G

KRISHNA NADINI GAUDHAM CHARITABLE TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

iii) 2. That at the time vide Circular No. 6 of 2023 dated 24-05-2023, the CBDT allowed to re-apply the application for registration u/s 12A only but re-application for approva u/s 80G was not covered under this Circular. 2. That the delay of 39 days in filing of appeals was due to as there are many