RANIWALA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

disallowance, on procedural ground, or not. It is observed that the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) - 6, Mumbairelied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)Principal Commissioner of Income-taxvs.Wipro Ltd.and [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327 (SC)Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbaivs.Dilip Kumar & Company while dismissing the claim

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)

4,85,58,87,970/-. The AO after incorporating the proposed adjustments made by the TPO passed draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act on 28.12.2017 determining total income under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs. 453,88,97,023/- and Rs. 842,23,40,345/- under provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Since

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 relying on the aforesaid CBDT Circular has taken a similar view and it would be relevant to refer to the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench which

BLUEPRINT INFRAHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU OR ITO WARD 6(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

4) of Section 139. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee deserves to succeed in principle. The matter is remanded to the AO for the purposes of verification. Needless to say that the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard 2.3 In the case of Gemini Communication Ltd. vs. ACIT inITA No. 1252/Mds/2012 August

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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)

10B etc. Such language is not used in Rule 128(9). Therefore, such condition cannot be read into Rule 128. 2.19 There have been many instances in the past, wherein, assessees in order to claim tax benefit under various provisions of ITA, were required to file various forms before filing Return of Income, under Section 139(1). Attention is drawn

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

4 of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 1,20,00,440/- on account of disallowance of construction expenses and in exemption u/s 12A and In Ground No. 5 of appeal addition of Rs.3,69,567/- on account of disallowance of certain expenses. The A/R of the appellant has also clubbed the submissions in reply filed during

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

4. The Ld CIT(A) as well as Ld DCIT(Exemption) erred in considering that, when Rs. 7,15,36,230/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances

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

4. The Ld CIT(A) as well as Ld DCIT(Exemption) erred in considering that, when Rs. 7,15,36,230/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances

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

ACIT, SIKAR vs. SIKAR KENDRIYA SAHKARI BANK LTD., SIKAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowed deduction u/s 80P in respect of interest received on loans / advances given to the employees, interest received from non SLR investments and Income received by way of service charges. However even in respect of such income deduction u/s 80P was allowed by 1st appellate authority in appeal no. 28/WR/08-09 vide order dated 21.08.2008. The only income on which deduction

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)

4 SETH R B MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHAIRTABLE TRUST VS CIT (E)-1, JAIPUR assessee was not informed about the disallowance of claim of 15 % income and thereby charging the trust at MMR. Even the assessee on the advise received deposited the impugned demand on the every same advice. Thus, when it came to the knowledge of the assessee the same

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

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

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

4. Findings & Decision 4.1 I have gone through the assessment order and grounds of appeal. The learned AO has carried out addition of Rs.58,51,920/- by 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

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)

disallowing the deduction per provision of the Act is hereby upheld and confirmed. Also, it is evident from the above discussion that the Assessing Officer(AO), Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income(Appeals) [AddI/JCIT(A)]. and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] do not have the authority under section 119(2)(b) of the Act to grant condonation for delay

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)

disallowing the deduction per provision of the Act is hereby upheld and confirmed. Also, it is evident from the above discussion that the Assessing Officer(AO), Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income(Appeals) [AddI/JCIT(A)]. and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] do not have the authority under section 119(2)(b) of the Act to grant condonation for delay

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

10B but in the following words:\n“04. In view of above discussion assessee's claim of registration section 12AB is\nliable\nto be rejected and thus being rejected on following grounds:\n• Registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.\n• Benefited to interested persons.\n8\nITA No. 118 & 779/JPR/2025\nRam Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Kota.\n• Non-Genuineness

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

4 of part II of 10B report, it was pointed out by the CA that salary of Rs. 5,70,000/- was paid to settler of the trust for being acting as a dean of the college and Rs. 3,00,000/- each to the other two trustees but management do no explain about the genuineness of those two payments