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

M/S. KARNAWAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

4. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has filed an application beyond a period of four years. She also submitted that the amendment was brought w.e.f. 13.07.2006. Hence, it is not applicable for this year. Findings & Analysis 5. The only issue for our consideration is whether Assessing Officer was right in rejecting assessee’s application under section 154 r.w.s

M/S. KARNAWAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

4. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has filed an application beyond a period of four years. She also submitted that the amendment was brought w.e.f. 13.07.2006. Hence, it is not applicable for this year. Findings & Analysis 5. The only issue for our consideration is whether Assessing Officer was right in rejecting assessee’s application under section 154 r.w.s

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)

disallowance was purely technical in nature and not on the merits of the exemption claim. He pointed out that Form 10B had been uploaded by the auditor within time and that the delay was only in verification, which was cured before the return was processed. It was contended that the audit report was very much available on record before

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.

4. The Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the appellant assessee is a registered society u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It has filed its return of income on 31.08.2018 which was processed u/s 143(1). The society has revised its return of income on 31.03.2019 along with form 10 and audit report u/s 10B claiming

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 11(2) of the IT Act and consequently nothing contained in the provisions

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

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

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, JODHPUR vs. M/S. SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION CONSCIETISATION AWARENESS & TRAINING, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S. Society For Education Exemption Ward, Jodhpur, Conscietisation Awareness & Room No. 56, Aayakar Training, Hodhgram, Bhawan, Paota ‘C’ Road, Kukanwali, Jodhpur Nagaur,Rajasthan Pan: Aadts6777M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 12(1)(b) of the Act.” 2 M/s. Society for Education Conscietisation Awareness & Training., AY 2014-15 2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) are that the assessee society for education has filed its return of income on 13.09.2014 declaring total income as ‘nil’ after claiming the exemption of Rs.14

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)

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT Appeals has grossly erred in interpreting provisions of section 115BBC(2) by holding that (refer para 7.5 and 7.6 of appeal order) the provisions of the said section only applies to religious trust and trust has to maintain records of identity of done. Whereas

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