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

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)

trusts carrying out the activity of advancement of any other object of general public utility. Hence, the restriction put by section 11(4A) was still applicable to the other limbs in the definition of charitable purposes u/s 2(15) of the Act. 38. …………………… 39. The CBDT issued a circular dated 19.12.2008, paragraph-3 whereof reads as under:— "3

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

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

2(15) of the Act has been amended w.e.f. 01.04.2009 defining the word 'Charitable' for the purpose of granting exemption and providing registration to the trusts and institutions engaged in charitable activities by way of inserting two provisos in this section denying exemption to those trusts / institutions uls 11, which are found to be engaged in the activities of general

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

charitable institutions, thusfind ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals. Firstproviso of section 12A(2) would be applicable to the case of the present assessee. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A), consequently delete the additions. Therefore, this ground raised by theassessee is allowed. (g)Prajapati Samaj Maroli

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

charitable institutions, thusfind ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals. Firstproviso of section 12A(2) would be applicable to the case of the present assessee. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A), consequently delete the additions. Therefore, this ground raised by theassessee is allowed. (g)Prajapati Samaj Maroli

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

charitable institutions, thusfind ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals. Firstproviso of section 12A(2) would be applicable to the case of the present assessee. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A), consequently delete the additions. Therefore, this ground raised by theassessee is allowed. (g)Prajapati Samaj Maroli

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

charitable institutions, thusfind ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals. Firstproviso of section 12A(2) would be applicable to the case of the present assessee. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A), consequently delete the additions. Therefore, this ground raised by theassessee is allowed. (g)Prajapati Samaj Maroli

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

charitable institutions, thusfind ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals. Firstproviso of section 12A(2) would be applicable to the case of the present assessee. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A), consequently delete the additions. Therefore, this ground raised by theassessee is allowed. (g)Prajapati Samaj Maroli

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

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

The appeals of the department are dismissed

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall not apply if— (a) the house or part of the house is actually let during the whole or any part of the previous year; or (b) any other benefit therefrom is derived by the owner. (4) Where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one house

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

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 on activities submitted by the assessee trust it is noticed that the trust is getting CSR fund from Varuna Integrated logistics

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

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) of section 12AA of the Act. There the Commissioner would be bound to record the finding that an activity or activities actually carried on by the Trust are not genuine being not in accordance with the objects of the Trust. Similarly, the situation would be different where the trust has before applying for registration found to have undertaken activities

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

trust. The CIT(Exemptions) has mentioned that assessee society is not carrying out any charitable activities. Due to noncompliance of assessee, the genuineness of activities could not be verified. As per provisions of section 12AA (1) of the Act, two factors namely the objects of charitable purpose and the genuineness of activities have 4 to be proved before granting

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

section 13(3) of the Act and especially when the trust was being run on the commercial lines by sharing of receipts with prohibited persons on lump sum or percentage basis?” 2. The assessee is a charitable

KRISHNA BALRAM FOUNDATION,MATHURA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2. We respectfully submit that the learned CIT has not adequately considered the genuineness of the trust's activities, which is a critical aspect when reviewing applications for registration under Sections 12AA. The rejection appears to focus solely on the financial records without considering the charitable objectives of the trust and its potential to carry out meaningful activities for public

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

3 | P a g e I observe that the ITAT Bench, Chennai in the case of V. Ramakrishna Charitable Trust (supra) has held the same in favour of the assessee. For the sake of brevity, it is reproduced below : “8. Thus, it is clear that income earned by the trust during the previous year are given exemption from income

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra