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

disallowing the benefit of exemption under Section 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed by the assessee appellant trust. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making addition of Rs 16,75,286/- on account of unverifiable creditors. 6

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 with effect from 2015-16 which reads as under:- (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, for such purposes the income shall be determined without any deduction or allowance by way of depreciation or otherwise in respect of any esset, acquisition of which has been claimed

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

6,36,87,969.81 1,89,47,976.00 Sub Total 50,76,20,693.36 60,18,98,460.00 2010-11 8,37,24,064.55 27,48,064.00 2011-12 8,60,16,075.33 8,75,24,252.00 Total 67,73,60,833.24 69,21,70,776.00 On perusal of above figures, it is clear that over the period of 11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S ARIHANT TRADING CO., BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance, U/S 194C and 40(a)(ia) would get attracted. On this aspect, as indicated above a reading of provisions of Section 194C (6), prior to the amendment of by Finance Act, 2015 (w.e.f. 1-06-2015), makes it clear that that during the relevant Assessment year, if the sub-contractors have supplied their PAN to the person making payments

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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)

Section 11(2) requiring filing “two months prior to the due date,” which came into effect only from A.Y. 2023-24. The same has no application to the year under appeal. Otherwise also he could not make out a new case now in this remand report. 6. Evidence already on record – Improper appreciation by authorities: The appellant submitted all relevant

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

6) of the Act. Since, the\nassessee is not entitled to benefit of section 11 of the Act for the reasons as detailed\nabove, this claim may otherwise be disallowed

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)

section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act. 5. Whether Id. CIT(A) is justified in allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act while misappropriation of the funds done by the assessee by utilizing them other than the mode prescribed u/s 11(5) of the Income- tax Act 6. Whether Id. CIT(A) is justified in reducing

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 of Rs. 43,272/- under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 2. Your honor is requested kindly to order for Charging of tax as applicable u/s 2 of Finance Act, 2013 @ nil upto Rs. 2 Lacs and @10% on balance Rs. 45,210. 6

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

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

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