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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ii) Savitri Foundation VS ITO (ITAT Mumbai) (iii)Sarvodaya Charitable Trust Vs Income Tax Officer. (Exemption) The appellant also quoted Circular No. 2/22 of CBDT dated 03.01.2020 u/s. 119 issued by CBDT. The above submission of the appellant is considered and the following is noted: “Sec. 12A(1)(ba) states as under the person in receipt of the income

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:-

143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 30.12.2016. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) while framing the assessment noticed that the assessee had made investment in shares of TISCO Ltd. amounting to INR 37,350/-. The AO treated it to be violation of the provision of section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. He therefore, treated the surplus

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

143(1)(a) of the Act for A.Y 2015-16 has denied the exemption Claimed u/s. 11 of the Act by the assessee trust for non filing of Form no. 10B. 5.1 The provisions of section 12A reads as under: 12A [(1)] The provisions of section 11 and 12 shall not apply in relation to the income of any trust

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.

143(3). The Assessing Officer in want of registration u/s 12A(a) denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT (Exemption) rejected the registration u/s 12A of the Act and against which assessee is in appeal before Hon’ble ITAT which is pending to be decided. The Assessing Officer mentioned in his order

INDIRA EDUCATION INSTITUTE AND HEALTH SOCIETY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

143(3) (Annexure-2). Relief be granted to the assessee The assessee humbly requests to the Hon'ble Bench of ITAT to kindly quash the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) dated 22.01.2020 in this regard by deleting the suo moto additions made of Rs. 44,34,468. The ld. AR has further submitted as under: In the matter of Appeal

INDIRA EDUCATION INSTITUTE AND HEALTH SOCIETY,UDAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

143(3) (Annexure-2). Relief be granted to the assessee The assessee humbly requests to the Hon'ble Bench of ITAT to kindly quash the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) dated 22.01.2020 in this regard by deleting the suo moto additions made of Rs. 44,34,468. The ld. AR has further submitted as under: In the matter of Appeal

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

ii) Statutory Corporations, Boards, Authorities, Commissions, etc. (by whatsoever names called) in the housing development, town planning, industrial development sectors are involved in the advancement of objects of general public utility, therefore are entitled to be considered as charities in the GPU categories. (iii) Such statutory corporations, boards, trusts authorities, etc. may be involved in promoting public objects and also

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.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

ACIT (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S.MAHESH SIKSHAN SANSTHAN, JODHPUR

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.375/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit-Circle (Exemption) M/S. Mahesh Sikshan Sansthan बनाम/ Room No.64, Aaykar Bhawan Umaid Hospital Road Paota ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Vs. Rajasthan-342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatm-6333-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

1)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were clearly attracted in this case. 2) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in allowing exemption u/s 11 without appreciating the fact that the assessee society has made donation amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- to Shree Maheshwari Samaj