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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

d)-Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3),\nclause 21(f)-Any sum paid by the assessee as an employer not\nallowable under section 40A(9) etc.\nHowever, in the case of the assessee, the auditor has not reported any\namount of disallowance.\n8. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in favour of the\nassesssee:\nS.No.\nName of case\nFindings

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

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 etc—Tribunal after\r\ntaking note of factual position

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)

D-the audit report, though not filed with the return of income, the same was available with the Assessing Officer when he processed the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The conditions for claiming exemption under Section 11 was satisfied. Although the requirement of furnishing the report was mandatory, filing it is a procedural aspect. Even

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of s. 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of s. 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of s. 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the\ncase of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court\nin the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 taxman 156, has held that\nlevy of penalty has to be clear

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

d) Addition by way of adjustment and intimation u/s 143(1) of\nIncome Tax Act on debatable and controversial Issues is beyond the\nscope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act. Revenue was clearly in\nerror in making the aforesaid adjustments.\n(e) Addition by way of adjustment and intimation u/s 143(1) of\nIncome

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

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

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

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 426/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 cuke SM Workforce Private Limited ITO, Vs. Shop No. G-19, Big Bazar, Near Ward, Bhiwadi Central Market, Nanglia, Tehsil- Tijara

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

depreciation of Rs. 52,88,222/-) net surplus of Rs. 1,58,99,324/- was claimed as exempt under section 11 and transferred to the corpus fund of the trust in Balance sheet. During the year 4,51,17,188/- on purchase of land and Rs. 45,66,860/- on other assets purchased was stated to be spent on capital

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 574 & 605/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s.Telecrats India Private Limited cuke The ITO Vs. B-21,Shakti Bhawani Shiavaji Colony Ward 1 (1) Khatipura Road, Jhotwara

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 574 & 605/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s.Telecrats India Private Limited cuke The ITO Vs. B-21,Shakti Bhawani Shiavaji Colony Ward 1 (1) Khatipura Road, Jhotwara

TAB INDIA GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 136/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke M/s. Tab India Granites Pvt. Ltd The DCIT 502, Apex Mall, Tonk Road Vs. Circle-1 Jaipur – 302 015 Jaipur

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable