M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

depreciation in respect of which deduction has been allowed as an application of income u/s 11. In view of the above, we hold that AO was not justified in denying the benefit of the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and we direct the AO to compute the income in accordance with the provision of section 11. Ground no.6

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)

Section 10(20) as amended by Finance Act 2002. 1.22. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is very humbly prayed that the claim of the appellant for grant of exemption u/s 10(20) may kindly be accepted for all the years under consideration. 1.23. The appellant has spent for development activities in accordance with provisions

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:

Section 10(20) as amended by Finance Act 2002. 1.22. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is very humbly prayed that the claim of the appellant for grant of exemption u/s 10(20) may kindly be accepted for all the years under consideration. 1.23. The appellant has spent for development activities in accordance with provisions

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

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

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

26,47,91,225) 7,27,74,623 Doubtful Debts Provision for Doubtful Debts 23 33,53,91,950 10,62,81,097 44,16,73,047 in Advance Receivables Total 67,29,57,798 (15,85,10,128) 51,44,47,670 From the abovetable it can be noted that in AY 13-14, 14-15 &in earlier years

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

26,76,850/-. In the draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C dated 14.3.2014, the Assessing Officer has determined the total income at Rs.7,84,12,208/- as there was a disallowance under Section 32 (1) (iia) of Rs.3,53,65,893/- being additional depreciation and an addition of Rs.3,69,463/- due to transfer pricing

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

10:28 AM)(43 of 43)[ ITA- 236/2016] considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there under form 10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of section 11(5) and section 13 to disallow the expense

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

10:28 AM)(43 of 43)[ ITA- 236/2016] considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there under form 10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of section 11(5) and section 13 to disallow the expense

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

10:28 AM)(43 of 43)[ ITA- 236/2016] considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there under form 10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of section 11(5) and section 13 to disallow the expense

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

10(34), the dividend income is exempt from Income Tax - This being so, in the result there remains no tax liability on the trust - even department has not been taking any particular stand and allowing the benefits of sec 11 and 12 in some of the years, then rethinking and refusing 26 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

26-29), it was held that where therewas\nfailure by Assessing Officer to indicate in assessment order that salarypaid by\nassessee-society to executive director was unreasonable, no violation of provision of\nsection 13(1)(c) could be alleged and exemption couldnot be denied.\n2.2 In the case of Asstt. CIT v. Idicula Trust Society [2012]21 taxmann.com 144/52

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing