SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. As the assessee has not received any relief from the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as raised here in above. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted here in below; 1] As regards ground

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. As the assessee has not received any relief from the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as raised here in above. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted here in below; 1] As regards ground

M/S. RAJASTHAN VIKAS SANSTHAN ,JODHPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Teesra Prahsar Bhawan, 1St A Jaipur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aaatr 3975 P Assessee By Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E), Jaipur Dated 03/01/2020 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted To The Assessee U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Incorrectly Holding That Funds Of The Trust Has Been Diverted For Purchase Of Personal Property Of The Trustees & In Form Of Highly Unreasonable Security Deposits Given To The Trustees Without Charging Interest, Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 13(1)(C)(Ii) R.W.S. 13(2)(A) & 13(2)(G) 1.1 The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Not Considering The Decision Of Hon’Ble Itat In Assessee’S Own Case Whereby Vide Order Dated 16/12/2011 In Ita No. 11/Jodh/2011 It Was Held That It Case The Trust Fails To Comply With The Requirements As Mentioned In Section 11 & 13 Of The Act, Then Exemption Can Be Denied But Registration Cannot Be Cancelled.

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a) & 13(2)(g) and thereby cancelled the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements cited by the Ld. A/R and Ld. D/R during the course of hearing before us in the context of factual matrix

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

housing or other activities, which are integral part of a highway project and for claiming deduction, the assessee has to maintain separate accounts for the said activities and submit a report for each undertaking or enterprise accompanied by profit and loss account and balance sheet of the undertaking or enterprise. Further, as per Rule 18BBB of the Income-tax Rules

ABDUL HAKIM,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

ABDUL KADIR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

6. The Ld.DR argued and fully stands with the order of the Ld.PCIT. The relevant paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5, on pages 26 to 27, are relied upon, which are extracted below:- “5.3. On the issue of rent income from the property, the Assessee has contended that it has given on a short term lease its property being a fully equipped

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house property. Accordingly the disallowance of Rs. I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 15 30,000/- made u/s 24(a) is deleted. In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the finding so recorded in the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue preferred the present appeal challenging the finding

SRSL CHARITABLE TRUST ,UDAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsrsl Charitable Trust, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Srsl House, Pulla Bhuwana Jaipur. Road, National Highway No. 8, Udaipur. Pan No. Aaats 3819 F Assessee By Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E), Jaipur Dated 02/01/2020 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted To The Assessee U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Incorrectly Holding That Activities Carried Out By The Assessee Are Not Genuinely Charitable & Also Not Carried Out In Accordance With The Objects Of The Trust. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Making Various Incorrect & Irrelevant Observations Particularly Holding That Rental Income Received From Letting Out The Properties Stated To Be Acquired For The Purpose Of Providing Educational Services To The Students Is An Activity Of Commercial In Nature Hit

c) The case of assessee falls under the last limb of section 2(15), i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility. Thus, proviso to section 2(15) applies to assessee. As per the first limb of proviso, such commercial activity should only be an incidental activity and not the main activity by itself. However, in the case

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

c. The copy of the confirmation from Dr. Kirti Kumar Jain 109 d. The copy of financials statement of BWR Trust for FY 2012-13 to 110-151 FY 2017-18 e. Memorandum and articles of association of Vibrant Properties 152-174 Limited 16 Indu Bala Porwal, Udaipur f. Financial statements for the period

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

house property 1,95,450/- 3 Profits and gains of business or profession 13,832/- 4 Income from other sources 29, 52,113/- Total 53,54,139/- 7.8 However, the assessee has not disclosed the details of share of profit received from the partnership firm, which is otherwise exempt from tax in the hands of the assessee

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

RAJ KUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

DCIT, CENTRAL CICLE-1, JODHPUR vs. SANJAY SINGHAL, MOUNT ABU

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that