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

46), then it would not be entitled to a registration under section 12 AB. In CIT(E) v. Indian Institution of Banking and Finance, 408 ITR 558, it was observed that merely because an assessee has been denied exemption under sections 10(22), (23) or (23C), it will not mean that he must be denied 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

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:

46) Held, yes Whether however, amounts which are significantly higher than recovery of costs, have to be treated as receipts from trade, commerce or business and quantitative limit in proviso to section 2(15) applies but no such activities would be permitted to local authorities and corporations - Held, yes. 5.1.5 Before discussing the applicability of the sub-section

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)

46) Held, yes Whether however, amounts which are significantly higher than recovery of costs, have to be treated as receipts from trade, commerce or business and quantitative limit in proviso to section 2(15) applies but no such activities would be permitted to local authorities and corporations - Held, yes. 5.1.5 Before discussing the applicability of the sub-section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

46 116 20 111 26.12.17 abhi 20 hi hua hai This is outgoing msg. kya from mobile no. 9414630611 and this amount of Rs. 20, 00,000/- indicates RTGS transaction which is specified in the msg. prior to this msg..Therefore, it cannot be taken as a cash transaction. 57 27 - 112 09.07.17 Rajesh ji This is incoming

SH. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

46 116 20 111 26.12.17 abhi 20 hi hua hai This is outgoing msg. kya from mobile no. 9414630611 and this amount of Rs. 20, 00,000/- indicates RTGS transaction which is specified in the msg. prior to this msg..Therefore, it cannot be taken as a cash transaction. 57 27 - 112 09.07.17 Rajesh ji This is incoming

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

46 116 20 111 26.12.17 abhi 20 hi hua hai This is outgoing msg. kya from mobile no. 9414630611 and this amount of Rs. 20, 00,000/- indicates RTGS transaction which is specified in the msg. prior to this msg..Therefore, it cannot be taken as a cash transaction. 57 27 - 112 09.07.17 Rajesh ji This is incoming

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered as per provision of section 11 and 12 or that as co- operative society so as to claim the provision of section 80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee are exempted from

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered as per provision of section 11 and 12 or that as co- operative society so as to claim the provision of section 80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee are exempted from

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered as per provision of section 11 and 12 or that as co- operative society so as to claim the provision of section 80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee are exempted from

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

46) of the section 10 of the Act, but that would not take away the status of assessee as "State" within the meaning of Article-12 r.w.s. Article 289 of the Constitution of India. The CBDT has specifically exempted certain income by way of this notification. There is no change in the activities of the assessee since inception which establishes

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

46) of the section 10 of the Act, but that would not take away the status of assessee as "State" within the meaning of Article-12 r.w.s. Article 289 of the Constitution of India. The CBDT has specifically exempted certain income by way of this notification. There is no change in the activities of the assessee since inception which establishes

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 14A of the Act. The\nonly relevant factor is the investments in such assets which have\nresulted or would result in to earning of such income which would\nnot form part of total income. However, neither the assessee\noffered any such disallowance suomoto in the computation of\nincome nor the AO made any disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant and the addition of Rs\n4,43,36,980- is hereby deleted. These grounds are allowed.\nGround No. 5 is general in nature.\nIn the result, the appeal is allowed.\"\n5. Feeling dissatisfied with the above finding so recorded in the\norder of the Id. CIT(A) the revenue has preferred the present

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

46) of the section 10 of the Act, but that would not take away the status of assessee as "State" within the meaning of Article-12 r.w.s. Article 289 of the Constitution of India. The CBDT has specifically exempted certain income by way of this notification. There is no change in the activities of the assessee since inception which establishes

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

46) of the section 10 of the Act, but that would not take away the status of assessee as "State" within the meaning of Article-12 r.w.s. Article 289 of the Constitution of India. The CBDT has specifically exempted certain income by way of this notification. There is no change in the activities of the assessee since inception which establishes

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

10. Different considerations apply when a special leave petition under article 136 of the Constitution is simply dismissed by saying 'dismissed' and an appeal provided under article 133 is dismissed also with the words 'the appeal is dismissed'. In the former case it has been laid by this court that when special leave petition is dismissed this court does