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

10 (23A) (via) of the Act of 1961, to the petitioner Trust with retrospective effect from the date of 01st April, 2006, was arbitrary in the face of the provisions of the Act of 1961; and therefore, cannot be deemed to be in consonance with any possible interpretation to be valid or legal. This court is of the opinion that

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Charitable Trust, has filed its return of income in ITR 7 on 31.03.2021 declaring its income at Rs. 2,97,690/- The return was processed on 24.12.2021 by CPC at assessed income of Rs.2,87,21,492/, disallowing the exemption claimed by the appellant of Rs. 1,34,89,828/-, Aggrieved to it. the appellant is in present appeal

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

10 (23A) (via) of the Act of 1961, to the petitioner Trust with retrospective effect from the date of 01st April, 2006, was arbitrary in the face of the provisions of the Act of 1961; and therefore, cannot be deemed to be in consonance with any possible interpretation to be valid or legal. This court is of the opinion that

JYOTI MALIWAL,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

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

section 1941A of the Act. Accordingly, the action of the AO is hereby confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 6. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities praying that the assessee was provided various opportunities by the lower authorities to argue the case but the assessee was lethargic

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

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

section 1941A of the Act. Accordingly, the action of the AO is hereby confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 6. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities praying that the assessee was provided various opportunities by the lower authorities to argue the case but the assessee was lethargic

UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

trust and applied to charitable or religious purposes falls short of 85% of the income derived during the previous year for the reason that the income has not been received during that year or any other reason, then on exercise of the option by the trust/institution in writing on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income

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

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

charitable trust past 30 years THROUGH TRUSTEE, who substantially satisfies the condition for NIMITTABEN N BHATT availing such exemption, should not be denied the vs. COMMISSIONER OF same merely on the bar of limitation especially INCOME TAX when the legislature has conferred wide (EXEMPTIONS) (2021) discretionary powers to condone such delay on the 279 TAXMAN 229 :(2021) authorities concerned. Dushkal

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

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

charitable trust past 30 years THROUGH TRUSTEE, who substantially satisfies the condition for NIMITTABEN N BHATT availing such exemption, should not be denied the vs. COMMISSIONER OF same merely on the bar of limitation especially INCOME TAX when the legislature has conferred wide (EXEMPTIONS) (2021) discretionary powers to condone such delay on the 279 TAXMAN 229 :(2021) authorities concerned. Dushkal

SHRIYA DEVI MATA MANDIR PRAJAPAT SAMAJ SEVA SANSTHAN,RAJSAMAND vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

10. In our view, Ld. CIT (Exemption) has been carried by nomenclature where the word "Samaj" used in the object clause has been presumed to be Prajapat Samaj, may be hypothetical and can not be justified in isolation. Had he gone through registration documents filed with Dev Sthan Vibha and clarification amendment in the object clause 3.7 & 3.10 filed before

SHREE VISHWAKARMA SUTRADHAR SAMPATI TRUST,BIKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Hearing On The Case.

10 Shree Vishwakarma Sutradhar Sampati Trust, Bikaner. We further note that the tax rates applicable is specified in Sec. 2(37A) which states that “rate or rates in force” or “rates in force”, in relation to an assessment year or financial year, mean the rate or rates of income-tax specified in this behalf in the Finance

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. VIDYA BHAWAN SOCIETY, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

10(34), the dividend income is exempt from Income Tax. This being so, in the result there remains no tax liability on the trust. Consequently we hold accordingly and delete the additions in this behalf. Our judgment is fortified by the judgments cited by the assessee's counsel (supra) which deal with the issue before us with precision and which

BHARAT MATA MANDIR NYAS,BANSWARA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Trust, but for all other purposes they are different, independent entities. That is the reason why Section 10 (23)(c) is worded as under: "Any income received by any person on behalf of..." Here "any person" refers to the assessee and "on behalf of" refers to such institutions. It may be an University, it may be an educational institution

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JODHPUR vs. PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT, PALI

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

charitable institution from inception and, thus is entitled for getting its income computed by taking into consideration provisions of section 11(1) of the Act of 1961, even for the years prior to having certificate under Section 12A of the Act of 1961." From the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant trust is registered u/s 12A and eligible

PALI TEXTILE COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT,PALI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

charitable institution from inception and, thus is entitled for getting its income computed by taking into consideration provisions of section 11(1) of the Act of 1961, even for the years prior to having certificate under Section 12A of the Act of 1961." From the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant trust is registered u/s 12A and eligible

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

10. 34. We, accordingly, allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned order under Section 148A (d) dated 31 March 2023 and the consequent initiation of reassessment proceedings through notice under Section 148 of the Act of even date. 5.1 We also rely upon the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Navjeevan Charitable Trust

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

34 | P a g e limited scrutiny and therefore, the CIT cannot invoke S. 263 on the issues, which were not made basis for selection of the case. Obviously for the reason that the AO is not legally entitled to enter into those issues, not selected for first scrutiny. Here also the scope inquiry of section 263 is limited

CLG UNIVERSAL FOUNDATION,JODHPUR vs. CIT ( EXEMPTION),, JAIPUR

In the result, ITAs 192 & 280/Jodh/2024 are allowed and ITA

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

10,83,000/- & Rs. 14,54,900/- shown for F.Y. 2021-22 & 2022-23 for meagre activities that too proved non genuine. • No bills/vouchers were produced to justify any expense debited in books, thus the same are also non genuine. • Directors could not give any justification for what work remuneration of Rs. 2.80,000/-84.63,000/- is drawn during

CLG UNIVERSAL FOUNDATION,JODHPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, ITAs 192 & 280/Jodh/2024 are allowed and ITA

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

10,83,000/- & Rs. 14,54,900/- shown for F.Y. 2021-22 & 2022-23 for meagre activities that too proved non genuine. • No bills/vouchers were produced to justify any expense debited in books, thus the same are also non genuine. • Directors could not give any justification for what work remuneration of Rs. 2.80,000/-84.63,000/- is drawn during

CLG UNIVERSAL FOUNDATION ,JODHPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, JAIPUR

In the result, ITAs 192 & 280/Jodh/2024 are allowed and ITA

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

10,83,000/- & Rs. 14,54,900/- shown for F.Y. 2021-22 & 2022-23 for meagre activities that too proved non genuine. • No bills/vouchers were produced to justify any expense debited in books, thus the same are also non genuine. • Directors could not give any justification for what work remuneration of Rs. 2.80,000/-84.63,000/- is drawn during