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 trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, "for which is of the nature referred to in sub-clause (a) of clause (24) of section 2.] for which is of the nature referred to in sub-section (4A) of section 11.] tax shall be charged on so much 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

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

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

REKHA SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, capital gain, business or profession. 4.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn't fall under any specific head of income

DCIT,CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PANNA LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA

house property, capital gain and other source being interest from savings bank. Assessee e-filed his return of income on 24.10.2018 for the AY 2018-19 declaring total income at Rs. 41,68,280/-. Assessee belongs to "Swaroop Narain Shiv Narain & Kumawat Group" of Jaipur on whose premises, a search u/s 132 of the Act was carried

PANNA LAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA

house property, capital gain and other source being interest from savings bank. Assessee e-filed his return of income on 24.10.2018 for the AY 2018-19 declaring total income at Rs. 41,68,280/-. Assessee belongs to "Swaroop Narain Shiv Narain & Kumawat Group" of Jaipur on whose premises, a search u/s 132 of the Act was carried

SMT RUCHIKA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10B Scheme, Gopalpura Circle-6, Bypass, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEUPA 7387 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri K.C. Meena (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 04/07/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

properties amounting to Rs. 53,72,71,648/-. 4. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has allowed the appeal of the assessee following the earlier order passed by the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case and his own decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

properties amounting to Rs. 53,72,71,648/-. 4. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has allowed the appeal of the assessee following the earlier order passed by the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case and his own decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA, JAIPUR

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

House of Parliament." • "In order to avoid double taxation, it is proposed to provide exemption under section 10 of the Act for any income arising 11 DCIT-Circle-1, Jaipur vs.Shri Prakash Chandra Mishra from providing specified services on which equalisation levy is chargeable." • "In order to ensure compliance with the provisions this Chapter, it is further proposed to provide

GUJRATI MAHAMANDAL HATI BHATA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house run by the society. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceeding, before the AO assessee has contended that as per xplantion 11(1) of the Act, the assessee did not received accured interest of Rs. 19,27,022/- but may deemed applied next year. For clamming exemption under Explanation (2)(i) below section 11(1), the assessee must exercise

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, 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