KIRAN JAIN,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TDS,, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

charitable Trust who is having tax exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. For reference, an extract from the section

JYOTI MALIWAL,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

charitable Trust who is having tax exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. For reference, an extract from the section

MAHADEVIA CHARITABLE TRUST ,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Charitable Trust are not genuine and are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the assessee-trust. Therefore, the registration of the assessee-society u/s 12A is hereby cancelled by invoking section 12AA(3) with effect from 1.4.2009, i.e., financial year from which irregularities in the functioning of the assessee have come to notice. I am also

GLOBAL HEALTH RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE ,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

charitable trust providing educational services. It runs a medical college under the name “M/s Pacific Institute of Medical Science” in Udaipur. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 05.3.2001, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the assessee trust should adhere to the provisions of sec.13 of the Act. 4. The revenue carried

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10 SHREE BHAIRAV SEVA We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court SAMITI vs. INCOME TAX in case of CIT vs. Xavier Kalavani Mandal (P.) OFFICER (2022) 112 TLC Ltd. (supra) held that in order to claim exemption 072 (ITAT, Mumbai) under section 11, the assessee can filed audit report in Form 10B even at later stage either before

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10 SHREE BHAIRAV SEVA We find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court SAMITI vs. INCOME TAX in case of CIT vs. Xavier Kalavani Mandal (P.) OFFICER (2022) 112 TLC Ltd. (supra) held that in order to claim exemption 072 (ITAT, Mumbai) under section 11, the assessee can filed audit report in Form 10B even at later stage either before

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

trust vide amended provisions of section 13(8)(effective from 01.04.2009) read with first and second proviso of section 2(15). However, on review of the said assessment order and records, for the relevant year, it was found that though the AO has denied the benefits of Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

20 crore in coming two years to assessee. Due to delay in process for approval in FCRA, the assessee trust has taken loan for payment to UIT for purchasing land and the said amount was duly returned back after receiving the donation. The donor had already placed the consent before the ld. AO and purpose of donation was well explained

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

20 crore in coming two years to assessee. Due to delay in process for approval in FCRA, the assessee trust has taken loan for payment to UIT for purchasing land and the said amount was duly returned back after receiving the donation. The donor had already placed the consent before the ld. AO and purpose of donation was well explained

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

20 crore in coming two years to assessee. Due to delay in process for approval in FCRA, the assessee trust has taken loan for payment to UIT for purchasing land and the said amount was duly returned back after receiving the donation. The donor had already placed the consent before the ld. AO and purpose of donation was well explained

EKKADAM SEVA SANSTHAN,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rejected. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the present appeal is barred by limitation by 20 days for which the assessee had filed the condonation application for condoning the delay. 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the condonation application filed

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

20. Even in absence of section 200A of the Act with introduction of section 234E was always open for the Revenue to demand and collect the fee for late filing of the statements. Section 200A would merely regulate the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. In other words, we cannot subscribe

M/S. GOPAL GOVARDHAN GOSHALA ,SANCHORE, JALORE. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-EXEMPTION, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. Gopal Goverdhan Goshala Vs The Dcit Pathmeda, Taluka Sanchore, Circle-Exemption, District- Jalore (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg 0739 J

10,000/- in names other than that of the trust. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not restricting the addition to income to the extent of violation of the provisions of 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as a sequel of not granting