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)

10B on 17.04.2023. 2.1 Subsequently, CPC processed the return under section 143(1) on 21.04.2023, disallowing the claim of exemption

UTTARAKHAND VIKAS SAMITI,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleuttarakhand Vikas Samiti Vs. Dcit, Cpc/Ito, Ward Exemption, 117, Main Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aaatu 3935 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A) Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 24.01.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 6,00,000/- Without Appreciating Facts Of The Case.

10B claiming set apart income of Rs. 6,00,000/- for which it has passed a resolution on 20.08.2018 and made FDR as required by the Act while processing the revised return u/s 143(1) vide intimation dated 09.02.2020. The CPC has disallowed the appellant’s claim for set apart of Rs. 6,00,000/- considering the fact that form

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

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

disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in by ignoring the fact that the assessee-trust could not upload Form-10 and Form-10B

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

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

disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in by ignoring the fact that the assessee-trust could not upload Form-10 and Form-10B

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

10B The CPC issued an intimation under section 143(1) disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 which resulted in a demand

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

disallow the claimed capital expenditure of Rs.5,25,52,586/-. Since, the assessee was hit by provision of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/-), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous as the final computation

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

10B. (Para 5 of the order) (c) The assessee failed to file electronically the audit report in prescribed format, therefore, exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act is disallowed.(Para 5.3 of the order) (d) The assessee trust has contravened the provisions of section

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

10B has been filed electronically on 25.10.2017 by the assessee. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) dated 17.08.2018 was issued electronically by then Assessing Officer, Ward Exemption, Udaipur on 17.08.2018, which was duly served. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee electronically

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.

10B declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny under compulsory criteria, accordingly first notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 24.9.2018 which stands served upon the assessee as per record. In response to the statutory notices, the assessee furnished written submissions and required information and documents through e-proceedings

JAINACHARYA DEVENDRA MUNI SHIKSHAN AND CHIKITSA SHODH SANSTHAN,UDAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU / ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, , UDAIPUR

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blejainacharya Devendra Muni Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Ito Shikshan & Chikitsa Shodh Exemption Ward Sansthan Udaipur - 313001 N H 8-1 (4) Bhuwana Udaipur (Raj) - 313001 Pan No. Aaatj 5263 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A)-1 Visakhapatnam [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 05.03.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2016-17 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Capital Expenditure Amounting To Rs. 24,75,863/- In Corpus Fund Of Rs. 6,09,448/- Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case.

disallowance of capital expenditure amounting to Rs. 24,75,863/- in corpus fund of Rs. 6,09,448/- without appreciating the merits of the case. 2. Having heard both the sides and perusal of the record, it is noted that assessee has filed its return of income and audit report in form 10B on Asst. Year