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

8. Thus, if a property is held under trust, and such property is a business, the case would fall u/s.11(4) and not u/s.11(4A) of the Act. Section 11(4A) of the Act would apply only to a case where the business is not held under trust. Thus, there is difference between property or business held under trust

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

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

8. Sir, one fails to understand that how detail of transaction which in fact executed by assessee can held as supporting evidence for allegation without any material based on which it can alleged that such transactions were not real but fictitious. 9. Your Honour, even for the sake of argument observation of the AO that mentioning of clause (b) instead

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)

8. The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). He vehemently argued that the return of income was not filed as per the provision of section as provided so as to claim the deduction. Law does

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

8) r.w. first and second proviso to Section 2(15). Accordingly, the income of the assessee was computed without giving any benefit for application of income and accumulation of income for the objects of the Housing Board and income was computed in accordance with commercial principals and the adjusted net surplus amounting to 97,79,97,625/- was brought

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

8) r.w. first and second proviso to Section 2(15). Accordingly, the income of the assessee was computed without giving any benefit for application of income and accumulation of income for the objects of the Housing Board and income was computed in accordance with commercial principals and the adjusted net surplus amounting to 97,79,97,625/- was brought

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

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

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

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)

8) TMI 482-ITAT MUMBAI (Case law Paper Book page 82-98) TP adjustment made in pursuance of Section 92BA (1) - specified domestic transactions- HELD THAT: In the present case there is an adjustment made to the income of the assessee by determining arm's-length price of specified domestic provisions by invoking the provisions of Section 92BA

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)

8) TMI 482-ITAT MUMBAI (Case law Paper Book page 82-98) TP adjustment made in pursuance of Section 92BA (1) - specified domestic transactions- HELD THAT: In the present case there is an adjustment made to the income of the assessee by determining arm's-length price of specified domestic provisions by invoking the provisions of Section 92BA

REKHA SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8-12) before the AO and a categorical submission was made in Pr-3(iii) as under "Sources of Cash Deposit: The income Tax Survey was conducted on the premises of the assessee on dated 04.07.2016 at the time of survey assessee surrendered the income of Rs.1,75,04,250/- as advances made to persons during the financial year