GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

section 13(1)(c) rw.s 13(2)(b)(g) of the Income-tax Act. -Funds were not used for the trust. 10 GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR VS DCIT-CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR Therefore, decision of Id. CIT(A) is not acceptable. Besides, departmental appeal is pending before Hon ble high court on the similar issue

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

13(3). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [198 ITR 297 (SC)] held that proceedings u/s. 147 are for the benefit of revenue and are aimed at gathering the "escaped income" of an assessee. It ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 9 M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust

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 145(3) and made 20% disallowance which comes to Rs.60,70,716/- being unverifiable expenses and thus made the addition in the hands of the assessee which in first appeal the ld. CIT(A) reduced the expenses to the extent of 10% and thus restrict addition at Rs.30,35,358/-. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee

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)

13 under which income of a charitable or religious institution is computed, allowance of depreciation under section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will

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

13) ... However, a bare perusal of notice dated 09.03.2004 which was issued in the\noriginal assessment proceedings under Section 143 makes it clear that the point on\nwhich the re-assessment proceedings were initiated, was well considered in the\noriginal proceedings. In fact, the very basis of issuing the show cause notice dated\n09.03.2004 was that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

13. Likewise, in case of S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore AIR 2007 SCW 766 it was held and observed as under: "7. The High Court, in our view, was clearly in error in holding that the appellant not having filed a memorandum of cross-objections in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code, could

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

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 at MMR but 9 The DCIT (Exemptions

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)

section 250 of Income Tax Act by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without providing the proper opportunity of being heard, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity and liable to be quashed. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing Kraft Paper in the State

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

13,37,400/-. During the year under consideration the assessee derives\nincome, from income from house property, income from capital Gain and\nincome from other sources. A copy of the return of income filed by the\nassessee is available on paper book page No...1.\nSubsequently enquiries were conducted in the case of assessee by DDIT\n(Inv) wing

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.

13(8) of the Act nothing contained in section 11 or Section 12 shall operate, so as to exclude of income of total income of previous year of the present. As we have held that in the light of the various judicial pronouncement proviso to clause (15) to Section 2 of the Act would not be applicable on the facts

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.

13(8) of the Act nothing contained in section 11 or Section 12 shall operate, so as to exclude of income of total income of previous year of the present. As we have held that in the light of the various judicial pronouncement proviso to clause (15) to Section 2 of the Act would not be applicable on the facts

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.

13(8) of the Act nothing contained in section 11 or Section 12 shall operate, so as to exclude of income of total income of previous year of the present. As we have held that in the light of the various judicial pronouncement proviso to clause (15) to Section 2 of the Act would not be applicable on the facts

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

3), it appears that the Assessing Officer has\nmade referenceto this section unnecessarily.\n2.3 In CIT v. Trustees of Dr. Divekar Charity Trust [1977] 110 ITR 227 (Bom.), it was\nheld that reasonable remuneration paid to the trustees for managing the property and\nother activities for the purposes of the trust was justified and was applicable towards the\npurposes

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)

13 of the Act and provision of these sections do not envisage any notional application of income. In the case of trusts/institutions, their income is exempt from tax under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Therefore, in these cases national deduction cannot be treated as application of income. Therefore keeping in view the settled position of land no deduction

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

13-2-2004 determining the total income at Rs. 26354942360/-. Thereafter, a search and seizure action was initiated in assessee's case by the Department on 2-7-2005 on which date the assessment for the A.Y. 2001-02 was not pending. Therefore, in view of the non- obstinate clause with which sub section (1) of section 153A opens

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

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based on any new material coming on record. Apparently, the formation

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3) of the Act and another u/s. 154 of the Act on 20.12.2017 and 27.12.2017 respectively. The review of the order under the grab of section 154 of the Act is not possible and that too the ld. AO noted that the issue that he has raised in the order u/s. 154 needs verification and that order cannot be passed

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

Depreciation has been claimed on building constructed-44bn rented land. Please justify. 11 ITA 1346 to 1348/JP/2019_ M/s Vaibhav Global Ltd. Vs ACIT 4. Name & add. with PAN of all the shareholders from whom paid up share capital, share application money and share premium amount received during the year. The same details may also be filed in respect