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)

house properties situated in India and Income from business. For the relevant 3 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. previous year, assessee was a resident in India, in accordance with section 6 of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, in accordance with section 5 read with section 4 and 6, assessee offered entire income earned by him, whether in India or outside India

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

property held under\ntrust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, \"for which is of the nature\nreferred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (24) of section 2.] for which is of the\nnature referred to in sub-section (4A) of section 11.] tax shall be charged on so\nmuch of the relevant income as is not exempt under section

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

property held under\ntrust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, \"for which is of the nature\nreferred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (24) of section 2.] for which is of the\nnature referred to in sub-section (4A) of section 11.] tax shall be charged on so\nmuch of the relevant income as is not exempt under section

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)

Housing & Urban Development Authority ( HIMUDA ) 157 taxmann.com 598 (Himachal Pradesh) wherein the High Court has held as under : 2.(iv) The assessee approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by filing three separate appeals for the assessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010. The assessee claimed that filing of its return was delayed due to delay

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)

10B as per Rule 17B, the assessce has shown investment in shares of M/s Om Metal Infra Project Ltd. of Rs. 23,35,000/- (in the balance sheet shown at Rs. 23,35,562/-). The shares of M/s Om Metals Infra Project Ltd not an eligible asses within the meaning of provisions of section 11(5) as such it attracts

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

House, Bharatpur 321 001 PAN No.: AAATU 1956F ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT, (Exemption), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR Date of hearing : 15/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 15/10/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These two appeals by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi

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

House, Bharatpur 321 001 PAN No.: AAATU 1956F ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT, (Exemption), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR Date of hearing : 15/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 15/10/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These two appeals by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi

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

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32\nSOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are\neligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not\ndeduction u/s 80IA.\n50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable\nHigh courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not\nspecify any particular claim

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)

house) of the original contract to the third party. In the case of the assessee company it was merely SPV specially formed as conduit for distribution and execution of work awarded to participating companies. It is not a case where work was given to third party. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 1.9. The assessee company was not in existence

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)

house) of the original contract to the third party. In the case of the assessee company it was merely SPV specially formed as conduit for distribution and execution of work awarded to participating companies. It is not a case where work was given to third party. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 1.9. The assessee company was not in existence

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), 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)

10B (PB 36-40) and the audited financial statements (PB 41-49) both dt.23.10.2017 were also filed. The AO at Page 7 of the assessment order observed that assessee has made payment to specified persons covered u/s 13(3) of the Act which is not justifiable. Funds of the trust are diverted for the benefit of trustees. Accordingly provisions

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

10B alongwith ROI was not filed before specified date which is mandatory requirement for claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Hence assessee UITs income cannot be treated as exempt u/s 11 of the IT Act by any means. 5.1.2 Out of the submission of the appellant (reproduced entirely in para 4 supra), the following points being relevant for adjudication

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

10B alongwith ROI was not filed before specified date which is mandatory requirement for claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Hence assessee UITs income cannot be treated as exempt u/s 11 of the IT Act by any means. 5.1.2 Out of the submission of the appellant (reproduced entirely in para 4 supra), the following points being relevant for adjudication

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.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

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.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

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

House, Gumanpura,\nKota.\nस्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं. / PAN/GIR No.: AAATR8150J\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &\nShri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. JCIT\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 23/09/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 20/11/2025\nआदेश/ORDER\nPER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nThe present

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

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

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA.\n50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim