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)

17. During the course of argument we have directed both the parties to file the list of the activities , which had resulted in receipt of revenue by the assessee ,both the parties have filed their respective synopsis which were taken on record . Submission of parties on the aspect of applicability of second proviso to section 2 (15)( Ground

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

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

17 This is revenue appeal, the grounds raised as under: “That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing coverage of exemption u/s 11, when he has himself held that the activities of the trust attracted the proviso to section 2(15) and hence these were not for 'charitable

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:

2(15). The object of the "Authority" is to provide shelter to the homeless people, therefore, there is no objectionable material to treat these institutions as non-charitable. The registration under Section 12A is mandatory to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 13, but registration alone cannot be treated as conclusive. It is always open to Revenue Authorities, while processing return

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S PREM MOTORS PVT LTD., GWALIOR

The appeals of the department are dismissed

17 further for broadening the concept of shareholders by way of legal fiction. It is a common case that any company is supposed to distribute the profits in the form of dividend to its shareholders/members and such dividend cannot be given to non- members. The second category specified under s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, viz., a concern (like

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

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 on activities submitted by the assessee trust it is noticed that the trust is getting CSR fund from Varuna Integrated logistics Pvt. Ltd. The applicant is, in the name

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

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

2. In the impugned order, the ld. CIT(E) has held as follows: “3. I have considered the material available on record. It is important to note that as norms mandated by law, mere submission of documents is not the sole criteria for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The approval

DCIT EXMP.CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. BIRLA JAN SEWA TRUST, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

charitable trust registered since 21.11.1977 and is running medical institution (hospital) and also in the imparting of education. The assesses trust besides have registered u/s 12AA of the Act was also approved u/s 10(23C)(via) of the Act. The assessee trust is running the hospital in the name of BIMR Hospital and BIMR Heart Centre. The assessee had filed

M/S SHRI HARI SADHNA SANSKAR SANRAKSHAN,GWALIOR vs. CIT EXMP., BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

17-18).Thus, both in law and on facts, the rejection of the application by the ld. CIT(E) u/s 80G(5)(vi) is illegal. 5. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. Puja Shri Jalrambapa and ‘MatushriVirbaima Charitable Trust,in Tax Appeal

SHRI ACHLESHWAR MAHADEVJI JI SARVJANIK NIYAS,GWALIOR vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji V Cit (Exemption) Sarvajanik Nyas, Sanatan Bhopal Dharm Mandir Road Gwalior- 474 001 Pan : Aahts1225J (Appellant) (Respondent)

17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in Circular No. 8 of 2022 of CBDT dt. 31st March, 2022 and latest circular no. 6/2023 dated 24th May, 2023 of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay in filing application in Form No. 10AB, under s. 80G(5) of the Act. We note that Co- ordinate

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

17,83,000/- aggregating about Rs. 80 lakhs and donation has been made from Syndicate Bank a/c to Sai Charitable Trust who has charged interest of Rs. 46,794/- who has direct nexus with the donation given and he confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 46,794/-. 29. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the Revenue is in appeal

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

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

SHREE BADSHAH YADAV CHARITABLE TRUST,MAINPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(5), MAINPURI

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust Campus S. K. Scientific Ward -4(2)(5), Public Inter College Karhal, Mainpuri Manipuri Pan : Aaots3631B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

charitable trust running an educational institution, and the cash deposits represented students' fee receipts, duly supported by student-wise, course-wise and session-wise records, bank statements, cash book and university confirmations. 2.2 BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the impugned cash deposits constituted gross receipts of the educational institution and not taxable income, and that

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the CIT (Exemption) Bhopal Act. Ld. CIT(E) found that provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act was granted to the assessee on 15.01.2022 for AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. Assessee was required to apply in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act within six months from

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the CIT (Exemption) Bhopal Act. Ld. CIT(E) found that provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act was granted to the assessee on 15.01.2022 for AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. Assessee was required to apply in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act within six months from

STATE BANK OF INDIA,VRINDAVAN vs. CIT APPEALS 1, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 65/Agra/2017 is allowed, whereas ITA

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

charitable organization having section 12AA and section 80G registration and hence not liable to pay tax, and so it should not be treated as an assessee in default. Many I.T.A Nos. 65& 66/Agra/2017 6 judicial precedents have been cited by the appellant in support of each of the above arguments. It is important to note that the appellant's default