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)

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that ld. CIT(Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval 5 Go Gram Eco Foundation vs. CIT(E) under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income

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

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

iv) Donation of Rs.25,000/- was given to Shri Seeta Gaushala, Ajmer. The constitution of Shri Seeta Gaushala and the registration granted to it u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) was furnished vide reply dt. 22.03.2024 (PB 113 & 131-144). (v) Details of bank transaction above Rs.20,000/- was furnished vide reply dt. 01.03.2024 (PB 45 & 102-103) and again furnished

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

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

iv) Donation of Rs.25,000/- was given to Shri Seeta Gaushala, Ajmer. The constitution of Shri Seeta Gaushala and the registration granted to it u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) was furnished vide reply dt. 22.03.2024 (PB 113 & 131-144). (v) Details of bank transaction above Rs.20,000/- was furnished vide reply dt. 01.03.2024 (PB 45 & 102-103) and again furnished

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

iv) of the said proviso as it stood immediately before its amendment vide the Finance Act, 2023, pass an order in writing granting it approval provisionally for a period of three years from the assessment year from which the approval is sought,] and send a copy of such order to the institution or fund: Provided also that the order under

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)

iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5). It was granted provisional registration in Form No.10AC on 27.10.2021 from 27.10.2021 to A.Y. 2024-25. The assessee commenced its activities from 13.10.2021, i.e. from the date of its incorporation. Therefore, it filed an application in Form No.10AB both u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) (PB 47-55) and under clause

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

iv) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 dated 07.03.2023 is also being cancelled.\nFurther assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization\nof provisional approval, thus with this order provisional approval is also\nlapsed and cancelled.\"\n5. Feeling dissatisfied with the above finding of the Id. CIT(E)\nthe

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

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay with following prayers and the assessee to this effect also filed an affidavit also :- “1. That assessee-company is a Section 8 company and filed 4 appeals on 05.10.2024 against the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur on rejection of registration u/s. 12A & rejection of approval u/s. 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961, with

GREETING HANDS FOR ABANDONED RESCUES TRUST,AJMER vs. ITO WARD -2(1), AJMER

In the result, bunch of four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

5)(iv)] 2. That the delay of 9 days in filing of appeals was due to delay in engage a counsel, who is well-versed by the latest development related to latest law related to registration of charitable trust under Section 12A & 80G of the I.T. Act 1961, as there are many recent changes in trust related laws

GREETING HANDS FOR ABANDONED RESCUES TRUST,AJMER vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), AJMER

In the result, bunch of four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

5)(iv)] 2. That the delay of 9 days in filing of appeals was due to delay in engage a counsel, who is well-versed by the latest development related to latest law related to registration of charitable trust under Section 12A & 80G of the I.T. Act 1961, as there are many recent changes in trust related laws

GREETING HANDS FOR ABANDONED RESCUES TRUST ,AJMER vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), AJMER

In the result, bunch of four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

5)(iv)] 2. That the delay of 9 days in filing of appeals was due to delay in engage a counsel, who is well-versed by the latest development related to latest law related to registration of charitable trust under Section 12A & 80G of the I.T. Act 1961, as there are many recent changes in trust related laws

GREETING HANDS FOR ABANDONED RESCUES TRUST,AJMER vs. ITO WARD -2(1), AJMER

In the result, bunch of four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

5)(iv)] 2. That the delay of 9 days in filing of appeals was due to delay in engage a counsel, who is well-versed by the latest development related to latest law related to registration of charitable trust under Section 12A & 80G of the I.T. Act 1961, as there are many recent changes in trust related laws

SHREE NAND GOPAL GAUSHALA SAMITTEE AJRONDA BARAN,BARAN vs. ITO WARD BARAN, BARAN

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

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

5)(iv)] 2. That reasonable cause of delay of 6 days in filing of appeals was due to delay in engage a counsel, who is well-versed by the latest development related to latest law related to registration of charitable trust under Section 12A & 80G of the I.T. Act 1961, as there are many recent changes in trust related laws

SANKIRTANA MOVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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)

80G(5)(iv) 2. That the delay of 39 days in filing of appeals was due to as there are many recent changes in trust related laws as:- (i) Whether the registration under RPT Act, 1959 is must of not . (ii) Whether, what is the exact legal remedy available to the trust viz. reapply or appeal. (iii) Any many more

SANKIRTANA MOVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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)

80G(5)(iv) 2. That the delay of 39 days in filing of appeals was due to as there are many recent changes in trust related laws as:- (i) Whether the registration under RPT Act, 1959 is must of not . (ii) Whether, what is the exact legal remedy available to the trust viz. reapply or appeal. (iii) Any many more

SANKIRTANA MOVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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)

80G(5)(iv) 2. That the delay of 39 days in filing of appeals was due to as there are many recent changes in trust related laws as:- (i) Whether the registration under RPT Act, 1959 is must of not . (ii) Whether, what is the exact legal remedy available to the trust viz. reapply or appeal. (iii) Any many more

SANKIRTANA MOVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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)

80G(5)(iv) 2. That the delay of 39 days in filing of appeals was due to as there are many recent changes in trust related laws as:- (i) Whether the registration under RPT Act, 1959 is must of not . (ii) Whether, what is the exact legal remedy available to the trust viz. reapply or appeal. (iii) Any many more