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)

1,00,000 by way of depreciation over the period of the life of the building without application of actual income but by way of notional expenditure. Therefore, the assessee will not be eligible for depreciation on assets which have been acquired by application of the income. Moreover, there is no provision under sections 11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

section 11(1)(d) of Income tax Act and not liable to tax. Therefore, it is not necessary that a voluntary contribution should be made with a specific direction to treat is a corpus. If the intention of the donor is to give that money to a Trust which they will keep it in Trust account in deposit

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

11-12 held that on perusal of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood upto A.Y. 2012-13, it is evident that the additional depreciation

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

11 Ocean Exim India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers' contribution/ disallowance u/s 43B as against employee's contribution u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act; respectively. Hence, your honour the fact that the same has been clarified

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under\nconsideration on assets which have already been claimed as application of income\nin earlier years and therefore this claim was not an allowable expenditure for\ncharitable purpose within the meaning of section 11(6) of the Act. Since, the\nassessee is not entitled to benefit of section 11

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

1) of the Act. The total income of the trust (before allowing exemption under sections 11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amounts which is not chargeable to tax, it is required to file its return in Form ITR-7, before the date specified in section 139. However, no return of income was filed. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction remained with

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act and the alleged ground of non-filing of the audit report alongwith return of income which was at the best a procedural omission, could never to an impediment in law in claiming the exemption. 6.2 Accordingly, the substantial questions of law have to be decided in favor of the appellant

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as\r\ndonation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69А—CIT(A)\r\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such\r\nas with regard to claim for carry forward of depreciation

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that “Where a return is processed at the Centre, the appeal proceedings relating to the processing of the return shall lie with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer” Thensitus of the CPC or the Assessing Office CPC is thus irrelevant

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

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation and the Assessing Officer did not honour the agreement. 3.1.2. After the coming of Sec. 271AAA applicability of Sec. 271(1)(c) has been completely ruled out by Sec. 271AAA(3). Moreover, the provisions of Sec. 271AAA starts with a non-obstante clause and overrides all other provisions of the Income Tax Act which essentially includes Sec. 271(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

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

11 and 14 would apply to all the proceedings pending in\nall the forums including before this Hon'ble Court.\n(ii) That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of\nassessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of\nincriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income\nwhich was found

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

11 and 14 would apply to all the proceedings pending in\nall the forums including before this Hon'ble Court.\n(ii) That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of\nassessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of\nincriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income\nwhich was found

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

11 and 14 would apply to all the proceedings pending in\nall the forums including before this Hon'ble Court.\n(ii) That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of\nassessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of\nincriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income\nwhich was found

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

11 and 14 would apply to all the proceedings pending in\nall the forums including before this Hon'ble Court.\n(ii) That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of\nassessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of\nincriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income\nwhich was found

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

11 and 14 would apply to all the proceedings pending in\nall the forums including before this Hon'ble Court.\n(ii) That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of\nassessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of\nincriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income\nwhich was found

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

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

11 and 14 would apply to all the proceedings pending in\nall the forums including before this Hon'ble Court.\n(ii) That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of\nassessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of\nincriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income\nwhich was found

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

11 and 14 would apply to all the proceedings pending in\nall the forums including before this Hon'ble Court.\n(ii) That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of\nassessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of\nincriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income\nwhich was found

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

11 and 14 would apply to all the proceedings pending in\nall the forums including before this Hon'ble Court.\n(ii) That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of\nassessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of\nincriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income\nwhich was found