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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

disallowed the claim of income not chargeable to\ntax u/s.10 was denied.\nAs the dispute is relates to the provision of section 10(23C)(iiiad) it\nwould be relevant to go through the provision of the Act which reads as\nunder:\n(23C) any income received by any person on behalf of—\n(i) the Prime Minister's National Relief

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.”

23)(iiib). It is further seen that to clarify this an explanation has been inserted w.e.f. 1/04/2015 that an institution can be said to be substantially financed by Govt. if it received 50% of the receipt from Govt grants. Rajasthan State text Book Board vs. ACIT(E) In this case the appellant is not existing solely for educational purposes

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

10. From the above, it becomes clear that it is not necessary that the property has been let out for computing the annual value because what is required u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act is a sum for which property might be let out. In case of let out properties section 23(1)(b) of the Act is applicable

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)

disallowed the claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The ld. CIT (A) has concurred with the view of the AO. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the assessee society running school and college and gross receipt from both the institutions during the year under consideration

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

23) or (23C), it will not mean that he must be denied exemption under section 11 of the Act as well. 12. Picking up the thread, here, the assessee while furnishing ITR for the year under consideration chose to have exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act and not to have benefit of exemption under section

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.”

disallowance of exemption claimed under section 10(10AA) which was in excess Rs 300000.00. Same was replied by assessee in response column to notice as well as by e mail. The copy of said notice is enclosed as Page No’s 2-4 of paper book and the replies thereto are enclosed as page No’s 5-12 of paper

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

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

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

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

disallowance relating to salary, foreign travel and treating contribution to Jaipur National University as application of income. The assessee society is in appeal against the order of ld CIT(A) for not treating the allowance of depreciation as application of income. 4. The first question that arises in the present appeal is the entitlement of the assessee society to exemption

BEAWAR BAL VIKAS SAMITEE,BEAWAR vs. ADDL JCIT OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, MYSORE

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

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

disallowing genuine claims of exemption under Section 10(2)(c)(vi). Courts have consistently held that the primary consideration should be the actual application of income towards charitable or religious purposes, rather than minor procedural irregularities. An equitable interpretation of tax laws ensures fairness to taxpayers and prevents unintended hardship. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has often favored

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. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

23 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. appellant, the disallowance made by the AO is confirmed.” Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, when in the month of February, 2011 the assessee has given the details of the employees and payment of salary which is allowed

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

23 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. appellant, the disallowance made by the AO is confirmed.” Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, when in the month of February, 2011 the assessee has given the details of the employees and payment of salary which is allowed

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

23 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. appellant, the disallowance made by the AO is confirmed.” Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, when in the month of February, 2011 the assessee has given the details of the employees and payment of salary which is allowed

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)

23 Aravali Buildhome LLP (iii) a working partner of a firm whose accounts are required to be audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, the 30th day of September] of the assessment year; (aa) in the case of an assessee who is required to furnish a report referred to in section

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

10,000 Total : 2,23,929 The AO proposed to disallow the same by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee