DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

ii) CIT v. ITOCHU Corporation, (2004) 268 ITR 172. The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee – society in making the applications for registration under section 12A and 80G

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

ii) CIT v. ITOCHU Corporation, (2004) 268 ITR 172. The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee – society in making the applications for registration under section 12A and 80G

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

ii) CIT v. ITOCHU Corporation, (2004) 268 ITR 172. The Tribunal has, in an elaborate order in which all the facts and the rival submissions have been taken into consideration, held that there was sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee – society in making the applications for registration under section 12A and 80G

PRACHEEN SHRI AGGARWAL DIGAMBER JAIN PANCHAYAT DELHI,DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed as indicated above for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

ii) of first. proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act should be treated as directory and not mandatory especially considering the transitional nature of the amendment as brought out by the taxation of other laws (relaxation and amendment of certain provisions) act 2020 for bringing new regime. Hence, in our view, the CIT(Exemptions) should not have rejected

DELHI AGROHA VIKAS TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(E) DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

5. The following case laws are relied upon in this regard- (I). Ajmeer Sheriff and co. 375 ITR 15 (Madras High Court), wherein the Tribunal haddeclined to condone delay for reasons that i) allegation regarding ill-health of managing partner and multiple medical complications was bereft of details and every day's delay had not been explained, and ii) even

DELHI AGROHA VIKAS TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(E) DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

5. The following case laws are relied upon in this regard- (I). Ajmeer Sheriff and co. 375 ITR 15 (Madras High Court), wherein the Tribunal haddeclined to condone delay for reasons that i) allegation regarding ill-health of managing partner and multiple medical complications was bereft of details and every day's delay had not been explained, and ii) even

SHRI BANKE BIHARI GAUSHALA SOCIETY,BALLABGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e., 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

SAT SHREE LALJI MISSIONJ CHARITABLE TRUST,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e., 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

SHRI BANKE BIHARI GAUSHALA SOCIETY,BALLABGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e., 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

SAT SHREE LALJI MISSION CHARITABLE TRUST,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e., 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

ACIT, CIRCLE- 32(1), NEW DELHI vs. WINDLASS STEEL CRAFTS LLP, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e., 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

MATA PARMESHWARI CHARITABLE TRUST,BAGHPAT, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2025-26 Mata Parmeshwari Charitable Vs. Cit (Exemption), Trust, Lucknow. Siddh Guru Sthan Neelkanth Ashram, Jewane Guliyan, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh – 250345, Pan: Aabtm1609A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj & Shri Manish Upneja, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Pooja Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G” instead of “14-Clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G.” 3.1 On 09.08.2024, this application was rejected through Form 10AD and when the assessee came to know of the inadvertent mistake, fresh application was filed on 29.08.2024 in Form 10AB which was rejected

ARTEMIS EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,GURGAON vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

80G of the Act respectively moved by the Appellant/Applicant being a Trust registered under Societies Registration Act has been rejected by ld. CIT(E) on the ground that the prime intent of the applicant is to pursue only medical research which is not covered under the term ‘education’. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has come up before the Tribunal

ARTEMIS EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,GURGAON vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

80G of the Act respectively moved by the Appellant/Applicant being a Trust registered under Societies Registration Act has been rejected by ld. CIT(E) on the ground that the prime intent of the applicant is to pursue only medical research which is not covered under the term ‘education’. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has come up before the Tribunal

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

5 12010, 10921 2010. I I 0 l/20 I 0, I 103/2010. 1 104/2010. rrl2l20r0 & rr24l20r0 (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE Page I of I 2012:DHC:7826-DB @-, * II\ TIIE HIGII CO{JR.'[' OF- DEX.IIX ,A'F NtrW DI].[,L{tr Rcserved on; 20"' ,\cplcmber", 2012 Date of Dectston; 2 I''' I)cc<:tnbar, 20I2 + nTA 754/2010 & C.M. AFFI-" No.15650/2012

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

5 12010, 10921 2010. I I 0 l/20 I 0, I 103/2010. 1 104/2010. rrl2l20r0 & rr24l20r0 (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE Page I of I 2012:DHC:7826-DB @-, * II\ TIIE HIGII CO{JR.'[' OF- DEX.IIX ,A'F NtrW DI].[,L{tr Rcserved on; 20"' ,\cplcmber", 2012 Date of Dectston; 2 I''' I)cc<:tnbar, 20I2 + nTA 754/2010 & C.M. AFFI-" No.15650/2012

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

5 12010, 10921 2010. I I 0 l/20 I 0, I 103/2010. 1 104/2010. rrl2l20r0 & rr24l20r0 (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE Page I of I 2012:DHC:7826-DB @-, * II\ TIIE HIGII CO{JR.'[' OF- DEX.IIX ,A'F NtrW DI].[,L{tr Rcserved on; 20"' ,\cplcmber", 2012 Date of Dectston; 2 I''' I)cc<:tnbar, 20I2 + nTA 754/2010 & C.M. AFFI-" No.15650/2012

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

5 12010, 10921 2010. I I 0 l/20 I 0, I 103/2010. 1 104/2010. rrl2l20r0 & rr24l20r0 (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE Page I of I Signing Date:07.09.2024 17:11:16 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified @-, * II\ TIIE