JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

10(46), whose income from all sources shall remain exempt. While in case of provisions of section 2(15), 11 and 12, the income / receipts are exempt only if they relates to charitable objects and or to any activity incidental in the nature of objects of the trust

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature

DR. GYANENDRA GOEL FOUNDATION,MATHURA vs. CIT EXMP., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

46,069 80.25 It is clearly evident from the aforementioned profit percentages that the applicant trust is only engrossed in non-Charitable and commercial activities for the purpose of generating huge for registration by an institute that exists for commercial interests without any when viewed in the fight of the provisions mandated by law meets a dead end. The applicant

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA vs. DR. ANIL KUMAR VERMA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaa.Y. :2009-10

10 Surendra Poddar 170000 170000 11 Shri Arun Chadha 500000 500000 12 Axis Bank 117500 481933 364433 0860101163454 13 Barkley Finance 169000 942626 773626 14 Renu Verma 150000 150000 15. Shree Timber Co. 200000 200000 Total 3253250 739572 2674559 5188237 13. The CIT(A), after considering the remand report had deleted the addition of Rs.51,88,237/- and had confirmed

OMKAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,GWALIOR vs. CIT[EXEMPTION], BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Omkar Memorial Vs. Cit(E), Charitable Society, Bhopal Room No. 201, Ii Floor, Reac, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaa08054B Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2025

Section 11(2) of the Act to be applied in future. The various receipts derived by the assessee in the form of dialysis receipts, xray receipts, interest receipts etc were applied for meeting out the charitable activities and all these facts are evidenced from audited balance sheet as well as income and expenditure account for the years ended

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust (2022) 450 ITR 368 (Mad) (HC ) iii) Bachittar Singh vs. CIT 2010 (AIR 328ITR400)(P&H HC) CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 iv) Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs PC IT 2023 452ITR229 (SC) 41. Further he brought to our notice the retraction letter submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and it clearly shows that

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust (2022) 450 ITR 368 (Mad) (HC ) iii) Bachittar Singh vs. CIT 2010 (AIR 328ITR400)(P&H HC) CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 iv) Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs PC IT 2023 452ITR229 (SC) 41. Further he brought to our notice the retraction letter submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and it clearly shows that

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust (2022) 450 ITR 368 (Mad) (HC ) iii) Bachittar Singh vs. CIT 2010 (AIR 328ITR400)(P&H HC) CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 iv) Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs PC IT 2023 452ITR229 (SC) 41. Further he brought to our notice the retraction letter submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reasons recorded are vague and it clearly shows that