GANGAUR EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowed the CSR expenditure as it is not allowable as per explanation 2 to sub section(1) of section 37 of the Income tax act,1961 But claimed deduction u/s 80 G of the Income tax act,1961 as it is allowable u/s 80G

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

section 80G(2)(a) even prior to its amendment. Therefore, the assessee's claim was rightly rejected" 6.6.3 Considering the facts of the case and respectfully following the judgement of Apex court(supra), I am inclined to agree with the assessing officer that appellant's claim of deduction of Rs. 1,27,67,676/- u/s 80G is not allowable. Thusdisallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

section 80G(2)(a) even prior to its amendment. Therefore, the assessee's claim was rightly rejected" 6.6.3 Considering the facts of the case and respectfully following the judgement of Apex court(supra), I am inclined to agree with the assessing officer that appellant's claim of deduction of Rs. 1,27,67,676/- u/s 80G is not allowable. Thusdisallowance

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

section 2(14) are not outside the purview of the\ndefinition of the capital asset and thus the gain on the sale of the same is\nchargeable to tax.\nFROM DELT\n99 DT. 24-7-99\nER KUMAR\nVAN\nDECLA\nETTE\nADON NO\n1\nT. & C.\nSENIOR TOWN PLANNER\nPAN CHIULA\nCHIEP COORDINATOR PLANNER DIRECTOR T&C PLANNING\nNCRPANG-KULA

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

section 80G by the Finance Act, 1976.\nAfter the insertion of the aforesaid Explanation, there cannot be any doubt\nthat, for purposes of claiming deduction, only cash amounts which may have\nbeen donated would be taken into account. No doubt this provision is not\nretrospective in nature, none the less it indicates the legislative intent behind\nsection 80G(2

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

80G(5) to the\nassessee-society. [Para 17]\n120-132\nBENEFITS TO TRUSTEES IS NOT GROUND FOR CANCELLATION\n13.\nTamil Nadu Cricket\nAssociation\nDIT(Exemptions)\n[2013]\ntaxmann.com\n(Madras)\nV.\n40\n250\nThus in contract to section 12AA(1)(b), where the grant of\nregistration requires satisfaction about the objects of the\ntrust as well as genuineness

ICON FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

disallowed only on basis that\nagreement entered into by assessee with its sister concern benefited said concern in\nviolation of section 13(1) - Held, yes [Para 28] [In favour of assessee]\nThe above order was challenged by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax before the\nHon'ble High Court of Bombay [2019] 104 taxmann.com 167 (Bombay) where the\nhon'ble court

ICON FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

disallowed only on basis that\nagreement entered into by assessee with its sister concern benefited said concern in\nviolation of section 13(1) - Held, yes [Para 28] [In favour of assessee]\nThe above order was challenged by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax before the\nHon'ble High Court of Bombay [2019] 104 taxmann.com 167 (Bombay) where the\nhon'ble court

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

disallowed to\ntheassessee out of his business expenditure. Now, the income of the assessee isnot\ncomputed as a business income. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was a\ncharitable institution and its income should be computed undersections 11, 12 and 13.\nClause (b) of section 40A(2) provides six categoriesof assessee, along with the list of\npersons who could

SHRI BABA BALAKNATH SEVA SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant Trust is before this Appellate Tribunal by way of above-captioned two appeals.. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. 3. Present appeal has been preferred as prayer for registration of the applicant trust u/s 12AB of the Act has been

SHRI BABA BALAKNATH SEVA SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION , JAIPUR

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant Trust is before this Appellate Tribunal by way of above-captioned two appeals.. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. 3. Present appeal has been preferred as prayer for registration of the applicant trust u/s 12AB of the Act has been

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 of part-V of lease\nagreement. Thus the cost of refilling of above ascertained liability and is\neligible for deduction because the assessee-company observes mercantile\nsystem of accounting.\"\n6. It has also been brought to our notice that even in the year 1993-94 though\nthe actual expenditure has been made, but that has been denied

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2) of the Act, amount of commission paid to a non resident outside India for the services rendered outside India will not fall in the category of income, and as such would not be chargeable to tax. So, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the commission. Consequently, provisions of section 40(a) (i) of the Act were

INDIA COMMERCIAL SERVICES ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

disallowance of Section 80G deduction, and depreciation on assets.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 powers. The AO had conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view, which the PCIT could not alter simply because he disagreed. The issues raised by the PCIT regarding unsecured loans, Section 80G deduction, and depreciation were either

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1026/JPR/2025 निर्धरणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2016-17 Agrasen Medical Relief & Research Society Central Spine, Sector -7, Vidhyadhr Nagar Jaipur - 302 039 (Raj) बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATA 7540F The ITO (E) Ward - 1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby :Shri P.C.Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudh

section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable in the present case. 6 AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY VS ITO, (E), WARD-1, JAIPUR In view of above, AO be directed to recompute the income by allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act.’’ 2.3.1 Further the ld.AR of the assessee has relied upon the order of the ITAT dated

VIDHYA ADITI FOUNDATION,VIJAY PATH vs. CIT EXEMPTION, KAILASH HEIGHT,

10. As a result, this appeal ITA No

Bench: Learned Cit(E), Seeking Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). Said Application Has Been Dismissed By Learned Cit(E) Vide Order Dated 17.02.2024, While Rejecting Registration On The Following Three Grounds:-  Incomplete Form 10Ab Having Been Submitted.  Registration Under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 Not Proved.  Genuineness Of Activities Of Trust Not Established.

disallowed. The ground for rejection of application, as per impugned order, is that the applicant was not eligible to apply under clause (ii) of Section 80G(5) of the Act, when its earlier application under clause (iii) of Section 80G(5) of the Act, stood already rejected, same having been withdrawn on 22.05.2023. 5. Arguments heard. File perused

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

2)(g) of the Act are attracted in the assessee's case and also the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 11(5) as such keeping in view the aforementioned discussion the claim of exemption u/s 11 of .the Act is rejected and the income of the trust is assessed as income from business and profession

RAMDULARI BANSAL WELFARE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee society is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

80G (5) of IT Act, 1961. 3 The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 4. Necessary cost to be awarded to the assessee. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an online application in Form No. 10AB dated: 27.09.2023 seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act in continuation

RAMDULARI BANSAL WELFARE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee society is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

80G (5) of IT Act, 1961. 3 The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 4. Necessary cost to be awarded to the assessee. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an online application in Form No. 10AB dated: 27.09.2023 seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act in continuation