OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

11 of I.T. Act. 1961 and also held that the 'A' has made investment in violation of Sec. 13(1) (d) and thereby taxed the income u/s. 164(2) and(3). That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not allowing the ground. 4. That the Id A.O. grossly erred disallowing the donation Expenses

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)

4). The deductions claimed under section 80IB were disallowed relying upon section 80AC on the ground that return of income had not been filed within the time limit specified under section 139(1). The issue before the Delhi High Court pertained to order passed in the assessee's application under section 119(2)(6) of the Act seeking extension

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

4,69,22,650/-\nbecomes taxable as no benefit of section 11 is to be allowable. This is to be\ntreated as enhancement to the Income of the assessee.\nWith regard to addition made by the AO, it is evident that the assessee has\nviolated section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The benefit of section 11

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)

disallowed the claim for accumulation under section 11(2), observing that the investment in prescribed modes under section 11(5) was not made during the relevant financial year. He therefore added Rs. 95,00,000/- to the total income of the appellant. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition holding that the provisions of section 11(2) read with section

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

4. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding advance of Rs.1,62,86,091/- given to other trust cannot be treated as investment or deposit. While assessee trust failed to kept excess fund in the mode prescribed u/s 11(5), which is the violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act. 5. Whether

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)

disallowance has been made despite the same has been accumulated in the manner as provided in section 11(5) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules. 3. Charging of tax @30% instead of applicable tax u/s 2 of Finance Act, 2013 @10% is bad in law and facts. 4

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

section 11 to 13 of the\nIncome-tax Act.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Lower Authorities\ngrossly erred in making addition of Rs.15,35,061/- to the income of the\nassessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under\nSection 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowing the appellant the benefit of accumulation of funds and investment u/s. 11(5) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the order of the Assessing Officer is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed. However, the appellant may file condonation petition for delay before the Commission of Income Tax (Exemption). 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

disallowing the appellant the benefit of accumulation of funds and investment u/s. 11(5) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the order of the Assessing Officer is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed. However, the appellant may file condonation petition for delay before the Commission of Income Tax (Exemption). 7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant

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

section 11(5) and is not eligible for claim of exemption u/s 11. 3.2 Unreasonable payment of salary:- The details filed have revealed that the assessee has made payment of salary to persons specified U/s 13(2) of the Act as under:- S. Name of the person Amount Rs. No. ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 20 M/s Apollo Animal Medical

INCOME TAX OFFICEER, WARD-2(2), KOTA, RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

11 to 13 of the order of the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in\nthe case of PCIT Hubbaali V/s Totagars Co-operative Sales Society [2017] 83\ntaxmann.com 140 (Karnataka) dated June 16, 2017.\nIn this way the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court support the stand of the\nrevenue on this issue.\n3.4 Section 80P (4

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

11.\nh. Total amount disallowable under section 43B (total of 11a to 11g) in schedule Ol.”\nThe appellant aggrieved with the disallowance made by the AO CPC, filed appeal\nwhich was decided on 30.07.2022 with the following remarks by the CIT(A),\nNFAC, New Delhi: -\n“5.3 Ground No 2: Disallowance under Section 43B of the Act: The appellant

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

11.\nh. Total amount disallowable under section 43B (total of 11a to 11g) in schedule Ol.”\nThe appellant aggrieved with the disallowance made by the AO CPC, filed appeal\nwhich was decided on 30.07.2022 with the following remarks by the CIT(A),\nNFAC, New Delhi: -\n“5.3 Ground No 2: Disallowance under Section 43B of the Act: The appellant

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

11.\nh. Total amount disallowable under section 43B (total of 11a to 11g) in schedule Ol.”\nThe appellant aggrieved with the disallowance made by the AO CPC, filed appeal\nwhich was decided on 30.07.2022 with the following remarks by the CIT(A),\nNFAC, New Delhi: -\n“5.3 Ground No 2: Disallowance under Section 43B of the Act: The appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

4. Surendra Kumar Meena 3,00,00,000/- Thus, there are four transactions of alleged investments/deposits. Before we proceed to examine each of these transactions the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act are required to be analyzed. For exercising the power under 13th proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) the prescribed authority has to satisfy itself about the existence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

4. Surendra Kumar Meena 3,00,00,000/- Thus, there are four transactions of alleged investments/deposits. Before we proceed to examine each of these transactions the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act are required to be analyzed. For exercising the power under 13th proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) the prescribed authority has to satisfy itself about the existence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

4. Surendra Kumar Meena 3,00,00,000/- Thus, there are four transactions of alleged investments/deposits. Before we proceed to examine each of these transactions the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act are required to be analyzed. For exercising the power under 13th proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) the prescribed authority has to satisfy itself about the existence