INDIA COMMERCIAL SERVICES ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Section 80G deduction, and depreciation on assets.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section

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

80G(5)(i)(b), reproduced\nhere under:\n“(B) The compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in\nforce by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its\nobjects;\"\nSimilar requirement appears under section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) also.\nThus, a bare reading of the provision make it obligatory

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1026/JPR/2025 निर्धरणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2016-17 Agrasen Medical Relief & Research Society Central Spine, Sector -7, Vidhyadhr Nagar Jaipur - 302 039 (Raj) बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATA 7540F The ITO (E) Ward - 1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby :Shri P.C.Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudh

section 80G. It may also be noted that the AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dt. 10.2.2014 for AY 2011-12 has accepted that assessee is registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee has subsequently been granted fresh registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act, the precondition of which is that the trust

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

80G of the IT Act vide Approval no.49/26 of even date. It is also granted fresh registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of IT Act vide registration dated 24.09.2021 for A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27. The income of assessee for AY 2011-12 was assessed u/s 143(3) considering that it is registered u/s 12AA

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

PUBBAJA BHUMI VIPASSANA TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION , JAIPUR

Appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes, and

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applicant was issued a letter/notice dated 26.12.2023 to furnish certain documents/ details to justify its claim by 10.01.2024. However, the applicant requested adjournment, and the matter was adjourned to 01.02.2024, vide notice dated 19.01.2024. But, no compliance was made by the applicant. A show cause notice dated 21.02.2024 came

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

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

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 can be exercised only when both the\nfollowing conditions are satisfied (i) the order of the Assessing Officer\nshould be erroneous, and (ii) it should be prejudicial to the interests of\nthe Revenue. These conditions are conjunctive. An order of assessment\npassed by the Assessing Officer should not be interfered with only\nbecause another view is possible

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (2) of section 288 and furnish along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year, the report of such audit in the prescribed form14 duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed:] 15[Provided also that any amount of donation received by the fund or institution in terms

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

depreciation" 3.2 Considering the reasons for selection ld. AO asked the assessee to submit confirmation from the party, copy of bank statement highlighting the loan transaction and copy of complete 4 Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur set of return of income filed by these parties to prove the creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of loan transaction. In response to the same

M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation which the assessee itself has added back in the computation of total income. As regards the remaining expenses of Rs. 36.17 lacs, the assessee has submitted that it is a State Government Undertaking where the rules for passing the vouchers are very stringent. The process of clearing the bills and vouchers takes time because it is checked whether