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

charitable object of the trust was the imparting of education which falls\nu/s.2(15) of the Act. The newspaper business was incidental to the attainment\nof the object of the trust, namely that of imparting education and the profits of\nthe newspaper business are utilized by the trust for achieving the object of\nimparting education. In this case, there

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

trust are in the nature of trade or commerce cannot be ground\nfor cancellation of registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Act and at can most be ground for\ndenial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act (PB No. 33-34.\n33.\nFurther Ld. AO in recent assessment for AY 2020-21 (PB No. 190-199), the\nactivities

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

trust is required to get its accounts audited under anyprovision of the\nAct,Assessee trust has not filed its return of income before issuing noticeus 148 of the\nAct and asked to explain the reasons for not submitting ITRwithin time limit. If return\nis not filed by prescribed date then benefit ofaccumulation us 11(2) will not be\navailable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year— (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; or (ii) any funds

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Charitable Trust [240 ITR 513] (Cal)  CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) [131 Taxman 386](Bom)  CIT vs. ShethManilalRancchoddasVishramBhawan Trust ]198 ITR 598] (Guj)  CIT vs. Raipur Pallottine Society [180 ITR 579] (MP)  CIT vs. Ganga Charity Trust Fund [162 ITR 612] (Guj)  CIT vs. Indian Jute Mills Association [134 ITR 68] (Cal)  Director of Income Tax (Exemption

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

reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee appellant is a charitable trust

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E) , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

charitable society, established long back and engaged in\npromoting nationality, education, personality development of the students without any\ndiscrimination of caste, creed and sex (Refer amended trust deed at PB5-32).\nThe facts, of the 1st round, as noted by the ld. CIT(E).is that the appellant filed an online\napplication u/s 12AA dt. 12.01.2019 in Form No.10A

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings, in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, she had appeared and produced relevant documents but the same were refused to entertain by the Assessing Authority. In appeal before the learned First Appellate Authority physical notice of hearing was ever received by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the 14 Ram Niwas

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

charitable purposes. However the appellant has not done so. Further it is not the case of the appellant that he has obtained registration under section 12A/12AA. The appellant has also not complied with the legal provisions of trust and exemption provisions under section 11 and 12 regarding the registration of trust and regarding the application of the voluntary contribution

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

charitable purposes. However the appellant has not done so. Further it is not the case of the appellant that he has obtained registration under section 12A/12AA. The appellant has also not complied with the legal provisions of trust and exemption provisions under section 11 and 12 regarding the registration of trust and regarding the application of the voluntary contribution

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

reassessment\norder passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is\nbad in law—Assessee's grounds allowed.\nPrayer: Thus in view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position of\nlaw the proceedings so initiated and assessment so passed may kindly be\nquashed.\n4. The Id. AO has denied the exemption

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

reassessment\norder passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is\nbad in law—Assessee's grounds allowed.\nPrayer: Thus in view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position of\nlaw the proceedings so initiated and assessment so passed may kindly be\nquashed.\n4. The Id. AO has denied the exemption

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

charitable society, established long back and engaged in promoting nationality, education, personality development of the students without any discrimination of caste, creed and sex (Refer amended trust deed at PB5-32). The facts, of the 1st round, as noted by the ld. CIT(E).is that the appellant filed an online application u/s 12AA dt. 12.01.2019 in Form No.10A

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

Charitable Trust [1987] 31 Taxman 335 /167 ITR 129\n(Raj.) wherein it was held as under:\n“The error envisaged by section 263 was not one which depended on\npossibility or the guess work but it should be actually an error either of\nfact or law. Unless the Commissioner categorically says that there was\nsome income from speculative business

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), 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)

reassessment order passed u/s 144/147 dated 13/12/2018 and impugned order 5 Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust passed by Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 250 dated 30/06/2023 are unjust, not maintainable and liable to be cancelled. 2. That on the facts and In law the impugned order passes by the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) is most arbitrary, unjust, untenable and liable

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR (129) (Rajasthan), CIT Vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that ‘The jurisdiction under

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR (129) (Rajasthan), CIT Vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that ‘The jurisdiction under

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nfor the limited purpose or issue and on perusal of the entire record or\ndetailed it cannot be said that the ld. AO has not made inquiries.”. Vide\ncopy of reasons recorded (PB8). If so then how the ld. Pr. CIT can\nassume the jurisdiction on this issue again when the same already has\nbeen examined