INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

10 or u/s 12AA can't be\nallowed to the appellant under the provision of IT Act, 1961. No such deduction\nshall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of it's income for such\n assessment year on or before the due date specified under section (1) of Section\n139. Hence, the appeal is hereby disallowed

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 10(23C)(iiiab) regarding not for the purpose of profit and substantially financed by Govt. Accordingly the claim of the assessee disallowed

SHARMA MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A)

section 10(23C)(iiiad), accordingly this disallowance of 10% is subject to out-come of the first issue set aside

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

section 10(5) to its employees at the time of deduction of tax at source. 7.13In respect of findings of the ld CIT(A) that Rule 2B is very clear in intent that that the said provisions are applicable in connection with proceeding on leave to any place in India and the appellant has in fact bent

DILIP SINGH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 10(10AA). The copy of acknowledgement of return of income filed by the assessee is enclosed as a part of paper book vide Page No. 1. The CPC, Bengaluru issued a notice dated 30.08.2021 proposing disallowance

BHARTIYA SHIKSHA PRACHAR SAMITI TONK,TONK vs. CIRCLE(EXEMP.), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Feeling Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 06.12.2018. Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer. By Way Of Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer (Exemption Circle), Jaipur Computed The Total Income Of The Assessee As Under:- “7. Subject To Above, The Total Income In This Case Is Computed As Under:- Gross Receipts As Per Income & Expenditure A/C Rs. 8,20,85,351/- Less: Revenue Expenditure As Per Income & Expenditure Account Rs. 6,28,43,345/- Rs. 1,92,42,006/- Total Income Rs. 1,92,42,006/- Rs. 1,92,42,010/-“ Rounded Off

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and in disallowing exemption simply on the ground that the assessee was having

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance 320,000,000 10

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance 320,000,000 10

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance 320,000,000 10

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University which has not been held to be application of income in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) of the Act, and addition to fixed Assets which have not been allowed as application of income. Taking into consideration all these issues in addition to systematic generation of surplus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA vs. BHIM SINGH, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) By The Assessee Which Were Allowed By The Ld. Cit (A) Are To Be Considered In This Appeal

disallowances made by the AO in the assessment framed under section 143(3) were deleted by the ld. CIT (A) as under :- 3 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. 4 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. 5 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. 6 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. Thus it is clear that the ld. CIT (A) has followed the decision of this Tribunal in assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JOY SYNDICATE & ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB DCIT vs. M/s Joy Syndicate & Enclave Pvt. Ltd. of the I.T. Act is justified on the ground that the provisions of clause (e) & (f) of section 80IB(10

PRIME ROSE CITY SCHOOL SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR

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

section 10(23C)(iiiad), whereas the two provisions are independent and mutually exclusive. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the assessee's submission that similar institutions facing the same issue were granted relief in appeal, and that the principle of parity should be applied. 7. Under

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

section 10(23C) from back date are also not according to the law and facts of the case and at the worst after the year of notice it can be done if any. In the case of CIT V/s Manav Vikas Avam Sewa Sansthan 336 ITR 250 (All) it has been held that “9. We have heard the learned counsel

LATE SH. BHIM SEN BATRA L/H SH. HIMANSHU BATRA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

10% of the claim. Ground No. 2 is regarding claim of cash discount given to the customers of Rs. 83,000/-. 14. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has made the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 83,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 2,70,993/-. The ld. A/R has submitted that the discount

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

10% of the claim. Ground No. 2 is regarding claim of cash discount given to the customers of Rs. 83,000/-. 14. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has made the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 83,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 2,70,993/-. The ld. A/R has submitted that the discount

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

10% of the claim. Ground No. 2 is regarding claim of cash discount given to the customers of Rs. 83,000/-. 14. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has made the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 83,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 2,70,993/-. The ld. A/R has submitted that the discount

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10) to the assessee. The only contention is that since the original return of income was filed by the asessee beyond the period prescribed in section 139(1), therefore, the embargo placed by section 80AC on the entitlement of the assessee to the deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act comes into play. Section 139 (4) allows "any person