JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., 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)

trust / institution. In order to explain the proviso to section 2(15), the CBDT has also issued a circular no.11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 and the same is reproduced as under:- “CIRCULAR NO. 11/2008. DATED 19-12-2008 1. Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) defines “charitable

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

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

trust attracted the proviso to section 2(15) and hence these were not for 'charitable purpose' and fur this reason provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T.Act are clearly attracted. (ii) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in directing to exclude Rs.17,56,27.767/- from the amount of Rs.42,24,51,350/- by ignoring the provisions

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

Trust or Institution created wholly for charitable or religious purpose. We have to examine whether assessee authority can be said to be an “Institution” created wholly for charitable purpose. ITA 55/Agra/2015 9 The term “Charitable purpose” is defined in Section 2(15) of 12. Act, 1961 and before Finance Act, 2008 whereby it was substituted with effect from

BUNDELKHAND GRAMOTTHAN EVAM SHAIKCHHIK VIKAS SAMITI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

charitable or religious trust have to apply 85% of income for the object of the trust so as to qualify for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Income not exceeding 15% of income is allowed to be accumulated under this section 11(1

OM DARSHAN TURST ,BAREILLY vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

1 That an application was filed by the Appellant before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lucknow ['CIT(E)'] for grant of approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. 2. Vide order dated 30.8.2019. (copy placed at pg1-2/PB.) the said approval was denied by CIT(E) inter alia holding that: 4. From a perusal of the notes

SAMARPAN ANNAM DANAM CHARITABLE SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

15) of the Act and also in violation of any other law as mentioned in Section 12 AB(1)(b) (i)(B) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E) dated 03/11/2022 the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order

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) iv) Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs PC IT 2023 452ITR229 (SC) Further, surrender is also based on incriminating material, which has been found and seized from a premise covered under search. Non deposit of post dated cheques does not tantamount to retraction

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) iv) Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs PC IT 2023 452ITR229 (SC) Further, surrender is also based on incriminating material, which has been found and seized from a premise covered under search. Non deposit of post dated cheques does not tantamount to retraction

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) iv) Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs PC IT 2023 452ITR229 (SC) Further, surrender is also based on incriminating material, which has been found and seized from a premise covered under search. Non deposit of post dated cheques does not tantamount to retraction

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Trust, as referred to in Section 11(2) of the Act; and that the said prohibition does not apply, to current year income, or even to accumulations up to 15% U/s. 11(l)(a) of the Act. It may be reiterated that the Diocese of Jalandhar stands notified U/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. This provision

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Trust, as referred to in Section 11(2) of the Act; and that the said prohibition does not apply, to current year income, or even to accumulations up to 15% U/s. 11(l)(a) of the Act. It may be reiterated that the Diocese of Jalandhar stands notified U/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. This provision

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Trust, as referred to in Section 11(2) of the Act; and that the said prohibition does not apply, to current year income, or even to accumulations up to 15% U/s. 11(l)(a) of the Act. It may be reiterated that the Diocese of Jalandhar stands notified U/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. This provision

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Trust, as referred to in Section 11(2) of the Act; and that the said prohibition does not apply, to current year income, or even to accumulations up to 15% U/s. 11(l)(a) of the Act. It may be reiterated that the Diocese of Jalandhar stands notified U/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. This provision

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Trust, as referred to in Section 11(2) of the Act; and that the said prohibition does not apply, to current year income, or even to accumulations up to 15% U/s. 11(l)(a) of the Act. It may be reiterated that the Diocese of Jalandhar stands notified U/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. This provision

R.S. PUBLIC SCHOOL,AGRA vs. CIT EXMP., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Shri R.S. Public School, Vs. Cit(Exemptions) Bainpur Road, Sikandra, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Agra, (U.P.) Nagar, Lucknow Pan Aagts 6694 C

charitable purposes which has not been controverted by the ld CIT (E) in the impugned order and the ld. CIT (DR). 13. In the case of ‘Orrisa Cricket Association Vs. CIT(E)’, in ITA No.335/CTK/2017 (AY: 1997-1998), dtd. 20/12/2017, ITAT, Cuttack Bench in its Order (APB,72-102) held that: “The violation of provisions of Section 13(1

AASHRAY,AGRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

1. That the learned CIT (Exemption) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting our application for registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act even when the objects of the trust are charitable as provided to section 2(15

DHIRITI FOUNDATION TRUST,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD, 1(3)(1), MATHURA, MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

1)(b) and second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has rejected assessee’s applications for registration u/s. 12AB and approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Act. ITA No.180 & 174/Agr/2025 2. Perused the records and heard learned representative for the assessee and learned departmental

DHRITI FOUNDATION TRUST,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD, 1(3)(1), MATHURA, MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

1)(b) and second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has rejected assessee’s applications for registration u/s. 12AB and approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Act. ITA No.180 & 174/Agr/2025 2. Perused the records and heard learned representative for the assessee and learned departmental