M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

disallowances so made by the Assessing officer. 11. The Co-ordinate Bench in case of ITO vs. Anthelio Business Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 78 taxmann.com 203 (Mumbai) in context of deduction under section 10B

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)

10B or section 10BA or Chapter VIA exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

SETH RB MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BANI PARK ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10B was also filed along with the ITR: Audit report under section 12A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of charitable or religious trusts or institutions (at page no. 81-82.) duly reflecting and claimed as such. All the details pertaining to the said claim of Rs. 43,272/- u/s 11(1)(a) were duly apparent

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Thus, we are of the view the ld. PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the IT Act and in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we find merit in the grievance raised by the assessee, accordingly we hold that the ld. PCIT is not justified in directing

RITESH KUMAR GARG,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A). The Ld. Cit

disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It is 5 Shri Ritesh Kumar Garg, Jaipur. submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief in case the return/audit report is not filed within prescribed time. Please refer

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due dates prescribed under Section 139(1) of the ITA. It is submitted that there are many sections in the ITA which specifically denied deduction or exemption or relief in case the return is not filed within the prescribed time frame. Attention is drawn toward Section 80AC, Section 80IA

ENOCHY CHILDREN RELIEF SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

10B on 19.06.2024. Intimation order under section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2019 was passed by the DCIT CPC disallowing

ENOCHY CHILDREN RELIEF SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

10B on 19.06.2024. Intimation order under section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2019 was passed by the DCIT CPC disallowing

DCIT, CIRCLE EXEMPTION JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. STATE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, JAIPR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

disallowed the deduction for the amount accumulated under provisions of section 11. 5.3.2 In this regard, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, to claim exemptions u/s 11 and 12, conditions mentioned u/s 12A are to be fulfilled. The relevant part of the section 12A is reproduced hereunder. 12A [(1)] The provisions of section 11 and section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

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

disallowing deduction claimed under section 12A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order the appellant has filed multiple grounds of appeal which are disposed off collectively as under: 4.2 In the income tax return, the appellant had claimed deduction under section 12A and in order to verify the correctness of the claim the learned AO called for registration

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA, JAIPUR

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance of expenses incurred towards specified services under the Income Tax Act. 10B. Further, on perusal of sub section (2) of Sec.165

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 80JJAA of the Act by the AO is not tenable. 2.7 Your honour, the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions stated in the statute in order to avail the benefit of the Act. 2.8 Your honour, the assessee further submits that the furnishing of Form 10DA under rule 19AB is directory in nature and not mandatory

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

section 11(2) and reported in form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. 5. The Ld. DCIT

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

section 11(2) and reported in form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. 5. The Ld. DCIT

RAJASTHAN OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

10B, (PB 3-4)  Bank statements, (PB 5-8)  Form No. 10 with resolution,  Clarificatory letters dated 16.08.2020 and 25.01.2021. Despite this, exemption was denied without finding any defect or misutilization. The CIT(A), while admitting that deposit was in a prescribed mode, still upheld the disallowance solely on a technical objection—an approach contrary to law and equity. Thus