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)

sections 11, 12 & 13 to allow depreciation. In the absence of any statutory provision under sections 11, 12 and 13 under

M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

12 of the Act. Given that there are no changes in the facts and circumstances of the present case in terms of nature of activities and operations being carried out by the assessee society in the financial year relevant to the impugned assessment year, we donot see a valid reason to deviate from the said decision taken by the Coordinate

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)

12 was not granted to a Trust or Institution in absence of registration u/s 12A, despite the fact that they fulfilled all the pre conditions to render them eligible u/s 12A. 1.9. The legislature intention on the issue is very clear that it is only a technical matter and assessee should not be punished for the same. If the assessee

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:

12 was not granted to a Trust or Institution in absence of registration u/s 12A, despite the fact that they fulfilled all the pre conditions to render them eligible u/s 12A. 1.9. The legislature intention on the issue is very clear that it is only a technical matter and assessee should not be punished for the same. If the assessee

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)

12 by virtue of the provisions contained in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 13, tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. Therefore, the exemption u/s 11 on the surplus declared by the assessee cannot be denied as held by various decisions (supra). However

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)

Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is the formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer. Upon the formation of the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the AO is empowered to assess or to reassess such income

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Section 119(2)(b) as mandated in Para 4(ii) of the said circular, the delay cannot be condoned. 4.9 In view of the above, I am of the considerate view that, since the appellant has filed Form 10B later than due date of filing of income tax return, thus it is not covered by immunity granted by Para

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

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

depreciation [section 32(2)]. (iv) Any other expenditure (not being a capital expenditure) expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of such income. 8 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR The case of the assessee is covered in point no. (iv). Hence the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted. Clauses

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.

section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account at Rs. 15,37,806/- and disallowance of claim of depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order

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.

section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account at Rs. 15,37,806/- and disallowance of claim of depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order

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.

section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account at Rs. 15,37,806/- and disallowance of claim of depreciation at Rs. 4,90,397/-. The AO has initiated proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of the order

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

12,500/- in form of excess depreciation claimed on windmill and even amount is being added back to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.” 6 M/s Compucom Software Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur 5. It was submitted that complete information along with necessary evidence

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

12,208/- as there was a disallowance under Section 32 (1) (iia) of Rs.3,53,65,893/- being additional depreciation

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

section 147 in the reason was typographical error, if considered correct, 46 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT non-observation of such serious typographical error by two senior officers i.e. (i) Range Head forwarding reason to approval authority with recommendation for approval and (ii) Pr. CIT, approving Authority. Non observation of such serious typographical error led to the conclusion that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation @ 80% on the assets pertaining to the power plant at Morak and windmill at Jaisalmer in the year under consideration. 12 M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur 16.6 We now refer to the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for Statistical purposes with no order as to cost

12 because of the provisions of the Section 13(1)( c) or 13(1)(d) then tax is chargeable on the relevant income or part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate (MMR). Thus in that eventuality, even in case there is violation of Sec 13, the entire income of the trust is not liable to be taxed

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

12. Thus, CSR expenditure is to be disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Income under the Head Income from Business and Profession'. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: “The existing provisions of section

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 32, shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing total income.. Therefore, since, the case at hand is of the assessment year, 2017-18 and during that year no set off of loss (including unabsorbed depreciation) was allowed against income u/s. 68, I dismiss this ground. 11. Vide ground