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

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

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

11,000 2. Income from House Property under section 24(a) Rs.1,48,031 3. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1

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.

depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06. The AO by disallowing the benefit u/s 11 assessed the total income

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.

depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06. The AO by disallowing the benefit u/s 11 assessed the total income

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.

depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order of CIT (Exemption), Jaipur u/s 12AA(3) dated 27.12.2010 by which the registration granted u/s 12AA was withdrawn w.e.f. AY 2005-06. The AO by disallowing the benefit u/s 11 assessed the total income

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

3,86,28,779/-. After claiming revenue expenditure of Rs. 2,27,29,455/- (including depreciation of Rs. 52,88,222/-) net surplus of Rs. 1,58,99,324/- was claimed as exempt under section 11

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

11 of the\nAct. The case of the assessee was taken up for \"Limited scrutiny\" on the basis of\nCASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.\nVarious documents and explanations called for were duly examined and an order\nu/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.\nLater Ld. PCIT(Central) called

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

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

11) If from primary facts more inferences than one could be drawn, it would not be\npossible to say that the assessee should have drawn any particular inference and\ncommunicated it to the assessing authority. How could an assessee be charged with\nfailure to communicate an inference, which he might or might not have drawn?\"\nA careful analysis of this

RAATH VIDYAPEETH,ALWAR vs. ITO (EXMP.), WARD-ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

3 RAATH VIDYAPEETH VS ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD-ALWAR 2.3 On the other hand ld.DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 2.4 After having heard the Counsels for both the parties and also perused the documents placed on record, judgement cited by the parties as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities, I noticed from the record

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

11 ITA NO.414.JPR/2025 SYLVAN GREEN PRIVATE LTD VS DCIT,CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR 2. lack of signature generated of PCIT on approval under section 151 3. No reply 3. lack of signature of person who has recorded the reason From the above reply of Ld AO it is clear that approval under section 151 is system -generated hence the PCIT

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:

3,099,901,014 Miscellaneous Income 323,911,442 Total Income - I 4,771,145,422 Expenditure Amount Establishment Expenses 121,580,202 General Administrative Expenses 140,384,922 Public Works 4,110,780,873 Interest and Financial Expenses 40,063,692 Miscellaneous Expenses 566,919,915 Depreciation during the year 97,706,544 Total Expenditure

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)

3,099,901,014 Miscellaneous Income 323,911,442 Total Income - I 4,771,145,422 Expenditure Amount Establishment Expenses 121,580,202 General Administrative Expenses 140,384,922 Public Works 4,110,780,873 Interest and Financial Expenses 40,063,692 Miscellaneous Expenses 566,919,915 Depreciation during the year 97,706,544 Total Expenditure

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

section 11 is not upheld. 8. In the result, the appeals of both years are treated as allowed and the direction of Hon'ble ITAT stands disposed." 5.2. In view of the above, ground number 1 is allowed. Ground number 2 :Application of capital expenditure may be allowed subject to provisions contained in sec 11 (specifically sec 11

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

section 11 is not upheld. 8. In the result, the appeals of both years are treated as allowed and the direction of Hon'ble ITAT stands disposed." 5.2. In view of the above, ground number 1 is allowed. Ground number 2 :Application of capital expenditure may be allowed subject to provisions contained in sec 11 (specifically sec 11

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

section 11 is not upheld. 8. In the result, the appeals of both years are treated as allowed and the direction of Hon'ble ITAT stands disposed." 5.2. In view of the above, ground number 1 is allowed. Ground number 2 :Application of capital expenditure may be allowed subject to provisions contained in sec 11 (specifically sec 11

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

section 11 is not upheld. 8. In the result, the appeals of both years are treated as allowed and the direction of Hon'ble ITAT stands disposed." 5.2. In view of the above, ground number 1 is allowed. Ground number 2 :Application of capital expenditure may be allowed subject to provisions contained in sec 11 (specifically sec 11

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

section 11 is not upheld. 8. In the result, the appeals of both years are treated as allowed and the direction of Hon'ble ITAT stands disposed." 5.2. In view of the above, ground number 1 is allowed. Ground number 2 :Application of capital expenditure may be allowed subject to provisions contained in sec 11 (specifically sec 11