M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

11. Section 37(1) of the Act being a ‘General’ section provides that Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed

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)’]

section 11(1)(d), the foreign contribution amount to Rs.7,43,95,029/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessment order. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 & I.T.A. Nos. 272 to 273/Jodh/2019 5 Assessment

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)’]

section 11(1)(d), the foreign contribution amount to Rs.7,43,95,029/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessment order. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 & I.T.A. Nos. 272 to 273/Jodh/2019 5 Assessment

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)’]

section 11(1)(d), the foreign contribution amount to Rs.7,43,95,029/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessment order. Being aggrieved, the revenue filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 & I.T.A. Nos. 272 to 273/Jodh/2019 5 Assessment

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

1) of section 12A section 44AB [section 44DA, section 50B). section 80-1A, section 80-1B, section 80-IC. section 80- ID section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E. [section 115JB or section 115VW] for to give a notice under Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically

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)

1) on 21.04.2023, disallowing the claim of exemption under section 11 and making an addition of Rs. 2 1,60,22,225/-, thereby

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. A/R placing reliance on the various judicial pronouncement submitted that no addition can be made either under section 41(1) or under section 68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further

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)

11 of the Act. The AO, however, while completing the assessment, assessed the total income of Rs. 1,07,77,985/- to be taxed @ MMR which includes income taxable @ 30% i.e. u/s 115BBC as against Rs. Nil declared in the return of income. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals

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:-

section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. He therefore, treated the surplus amounting to INR 2,11,32,268/- as business income and further made addition on account of disallowance

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.

section 11 and making addition treating corpus fund receipts/donations as income of assessee. 7. In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble SC and thereafter by the Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 5 Shree Vishwakarma Sutradhar Sampati Trust, Bikaner. of the Income-tax Act for not having registered

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 which resulted in a demand to be payable by the taxpayer amount of Rs. 13489828. During

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

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

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act, all the grounds of appeal are clubbed together for the sake of convenience and disposed as under: 4.1 The appellant had not filed the Form No.10B within the prescribed time and therefore the CPC did not grant the exemption u/s 11 as per the intimation u/s 143(1). Thereafter, the appellant

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

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

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act, all the grounds of appeal are clubbed together for the sake of convenience and disposed as under: 4.1 The appellant had not filed the Form No.10B within the prescribed time and therefore the CPC did not grant the exemption u/s 11 as per the intimation u/s 143(1). Thereafter, the appellant

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd 5.2.2 As regards the disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of section 36(1

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

11. It would be relevant to note here that the C.B.D.T. had situated an Instruction No. 17/2008 and 26.11.2008 under the subject 'Assessment of banks — Checklist for deductions' —Regarding for the section 36(l)(vii), 36(!)(viia) and 37(1) of the Income—Tax Act. The Board at Para No. (xi) has categorically mentioned that 'section 37 of the Income

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

11. It would be relevant to note here that the C.B.D.T. had situated an Instruction No. 17/2008 and 26.11.2008 under the subject 'Assessment of banks — Checklist for deductions' —Regarding for the section 36(l)(vii), 36(!)(viia) and 37(1) of the Income—Tax Act. The Board at Para No. (xi) has categorically mentioned that 'section 37 of the Income

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

11. It would be relevant to note here that the C.B.D.T. had situated an Instruction No. 17/2008 and 26.11.2008 under the subject 'Assessment of banks — Checklist for deductions' —Regarding for the section 36(l)(vii), 36(!)(viia) and 37(1) of the Income—Tax Act. The Board at Para No. (xi) has categorically mentioned that 'section 37 of the Income

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

11. It would be relevant to note here that the C.B.D.T. had situated an Instruction No. 17/2008 and 26.11.2008 under the subject 'Assessment of banks — Checklist for deductions' —Regarding for the section 36(l)(vii), 36(!)(viia) and 37(1) of the Income—Tax Act. The Board at Para No. (xi) has categorically mentioned that 'section 37 of the Income

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

11. It would be relevant to note here that the C.B.D.T. had situated an Instruction No. 17/2008 and 26.11.2008 under the subject 'Assessment of banks — Checklist for deductions' —Regarding for the section 36(l)(vii), 36(!)(viia) and 37(1) of the Income—Tax Act. The Board at Para No. (xi) has categorically mentioned that 'section 37 of the Income