CIT (Exemptions) v. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee

400 ITR 466High Court2018#3809 most cited

What is CIT (Exemptions) v. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee authority for?

The proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 2014, is declaratory and has retrospective effect, allowing registration under Section 12AA during pending assessment proceedings to claim exemptions for earlier years. Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 should not be initiated solely for the non-registration of a trust.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee · 400 ITR 466 · Section 12A(2) · Section 11 · Section 12 · Section 147 · retrospective effect · declaratory proviso · registration during assessment · charitable trust exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12AASection 12ASection 12Section 119(2)(b)Section 147Section 10(23C)(iv)Section 143(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 12a(2)section 10(23c)(iv)section 10(23c)(vi)section 11(2)section 119(2)section 11(1)(a)section 119(2)(b)section 12aaregistration under section 12amaximum marginal rateapplication of incomesection 12ab

Judgments citing CIT (Exemptions) v. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee

Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Kalburgi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…retrospective in nature, in order to give the section a purposive interpretation. " 2.7 The ld. A.R. further submitted that in the case of CIT(E) Vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee, reported in Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga Page 5 of 42 (2018) 400 ITR 466 (Raj.), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that as per Sec.l2A(2) provisos the sec. 11 exemption is applicable for the Assessees Asst years 2003-04 to 2008- 09, as these assessments are pending in dispute as on the date of registration i.e. 29th Oct, 2010. Specifically, it was held in para 6.5 of this decision that though the provisions have come…

Peoples Forum Foundation, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/CTK/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)

…file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after considering that the assessee has the registration u/s.12A. Ld AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs Shree Shyam Mandir Committee, 400 ITR 466 (Raj), wherein in para 30, it has been held as follows: “30. This brings us to the next question, i.e. whether the assessment proceedings “pending before the AO” as stated in the first proviso to section 12A(2) can be taken as “pending in appeal”, or, in other words, whether proceedings pending in appeal can be taken to be proceedings pending be…

Shree Khathu Shyam Jangid Brahman Dharamshala, Gurgaon vs. ITO(E) Ward, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1845/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Khathu Shyam Jangid Brahman Vs. Ito (E), Dharamshala, Ward, C/O Rra Taxindia, Faridabad. D-28, South Exension, Part I, New Delhi – 110 049. Pan: Aajts0636B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 3

…-section (2) to section 12A of the Act and in view of various orders and judgments of coordinate Benches of ITAT including the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT (E) vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee dated 23.10.2017 reported as 400 ITR 466 (Raj), if the proviso brought into the statute as a procedural or beneficial one intending to remove the hardships, it is applicable retrospectively. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the order of the ITAT, Pune Bench dated 27.02.2016 in the case of M/s Shri Vishwakalyan Jivraksha Pratishthan vs. ITO to submit that the amen…

M/S Karnataka State Students Welfare Fund, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1462/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1458 To 1462/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 133ASection 148

…ions of the Act, which are in operation on the date of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, should apply for the initiation of proceedings. In any case, we notice that the Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee (2018)(400 ITR 466)(Raj) that the provisos inserted in Sec.12A(2) are declaratory and hence shall have retrospective effect. We notice that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has approved the view so expressed by the Tribunal in the following cases:- (1) Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity vs. Deputy CIT (2016)(156 ITD 0646)(Kol) (2) SNDP Yogam vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) (201…

M/S Karnataka State Students Welfare Fund, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1461/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1458 To 1462/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 133ASection 148

…ions of the Act, which are in operation on the date of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, should apply for the initiation of proceedings. In any case, we notice that the Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee (2018)(400 ITR 466)(Raj) that the provisos inserted in Sec.12A(2) are declaratory and hence shall have retrospective effect. We notice that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has approved the view so expressed by the Tribunal in the following cases:- (1) Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity vs. Deputy CIT (2016)(156 ITD 0646)(Kol) (2) SNDP Yogam vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) (201…

M/S Karnataka State Students Welfare Fund, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1460/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1458 To 1462/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 133ASection 148

…ions of the Act, which are in operation on the date of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, should apply for the initiation of proceedings. In any case, we notice that the Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee (2018)(400 ITR 466)(Raj) that the provisos inserted in Sec.12A(2) are declaratory and hence shall have retrospective effect. We notice that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has approved the view so expressed by the Tribunal in the following cases:- (1) Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity vs. Deputy CIT (2016)(156 ITD 0646)(Kol) (2) SNDP Yogam vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) (201…

M/S Karnataka State Students Welfare Fund, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1459/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1458 To 1462/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 133ASection 148

…ions of the Act, which are in operation on the date of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, should apply for the initiation of proceedings. In any case, we notice that the Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee (2018)(400 ITR 466)(Raj) that the provisos inserted in Sec.12A(2) are declaratory and hence shall have retrospective effect. We notice that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has approved the view so expressed by the Tribunal in the following cases:- (1) Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity vs. Deputy CIT (2016)(156 ITD 0646)(Kol) (2) SNDP Yogam vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) (201…

M/S Karnataka State Students Welfare Fund, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 1458/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.1458 To 1462/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 133ASection 148

…ions of the Act, which are in operation on the date of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, should apply for the initiation of proceedings. In any case, we notice that the Rajasthan High Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee (2018)(400 ITR 466)(Raj) that the provisos inserted in Sec.12A(2) are declaratory and hence shall have retrospective effect. We notice that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has approved the view so expressed by the Tribunal in the following cases:- (1) Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity vs. Deputy CIT (2016)(156 ITD 0646)(Kol) (2) SNDP Yogam vs. Asst. DIT (Exemption) (201…

Lady Kikabai Premchand Iyambail Trust, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Exempt), Ward - 1, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1403/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvediआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1403/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Deoraj Shegaonkar DCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)

…ending before the ld. CIT(A), in my considered opinion, the benefit of first proviso to section 12A(2) ought to have been granted. My view is fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee (2018) 400 ITR 466 (Raj.) in which it has been held that “an assessment proceedings which is pending in appeal before the appellate authority should be deemed to be “assessment proceedings pending before the AO.” within the meaning of the term as envisaged under the proviso. It follows there from that the assessee which obtained registration u/s.12AA of the Act dur…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Exemptions, Bangalore vs. M/S Centre Fpr Cellular and Molecular Platforms, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Centre For Cellular & Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post Bag No. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. Pan: Aadcc8572D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2

…nue supported the assessment order whereas the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A). He also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of CIT(E) Vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee as reported in [2018] 400 ITR 466 (Raj), copy available on pages 1 to 16 of the paper book. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the present case, the issue in dispute is this whether the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 11 and 12 of the IT Act or not. It is noted by ld. CIT(A) on page no. 8 of his order that during the course of appellate proceedin…

Shri.Krishnabai Ghat Trust, Satara vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-1, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.44/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.44/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Krishnabai Ghat Trust, ITO (Exemptions), Vs. C/o. Shri B.N. Budhakar, Ward-1, Pune Opp. Karad Urban Co.op. Bank, Talbhag Branch, Shaniwar Peth, Karad, Dist. Satara PAN : AADTS1022R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Deepa Khare Respondent by Shri M.K.Verma Date of hearing 02-05-2019 Date of pronouncement 03-05-2019 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed by the CIT(A)-10, Pune…