THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

12A, 68.” CIT (E) v. Patanjali Yogpeeth (NYAS) (2018) 252 Taxman 317/300 CTR 266 (Delhi)(HC). Property held for charitable purposes- Propagation of yoga falls under category of ‘Imparting of education’-Corpus donation to be excluded from total income-Higher membership fee is also donation hence cannot be assessed as income [Ss.2(15), 2(24(iia),4] Mayank Welfare society

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) Page 2 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 3 of 32 of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION DIVISION NO.2 ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (TDS) , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Executive Engineer, Dy. Cit (Tds), Construction, Bhopal Division No.2, बनाम/ E-5, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Bplo 00510 G Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

12A of the Act) as a professional service provider, whereas the said payee EPCO is not engaged in any business activity nor does it have any objective of providing the professional services in the course of its activities as defined in explanation to section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Page 1 of 4 Executive Engineer Construction, Division

SAMARTHAN CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Samarthan Centre For Dcit (Exemption) Development Support, Bhopal 36, Green Venue, बनाम/ Kolar Road Huzur, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats3998P Assessee By Shri Pradeep Ambastha & Ashish Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

TDS, if any, deducted by the payer does not determine/alter the basic nature of services rendered or objectivities performed by the appellant trust/deductee. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add to, alter

M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS CORPORATION, INDORE,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 201(1) of the Act dated 3rd June, 2016 states about the amount of rent paid by the assessee to the payee and certifies that the rental income received from the assessee has been accounted for in the financial statements and the taxable income of the ‘payee’ is nil. This fact proves that there was no liability

M.P. WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS CORPORATION, INDORE,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 201(1) of the Act dated 3rd June, 2016 states about the amount of rent paid by the assessee to the payee and certifies that the rental income received from the assessee has been accounted for in the financial statements and the taxable income of the ‘payee’ is nil. This fact proves that there was no liability

BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

12A of the Act. The assessee states that it runs a school named “Bal Bhavan School” since 1976 which is a very famous school for class I to class XII for CBSE Board and its students have done their names in India and abroad. For AY 2014-15, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. Nil after

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS has been deducted by various insurance companies on payments made by them. The disallowance was made for various reasons which, as mentioned in the assessment order are summarised here in below: Para Observations of the AO Submission of the assessee No 6.6.3(i) Details of faculty involved not During the course of assessment furnished proceedings no such information

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS has been deducted by various insurance companies on payments made by them. The disallowance was made for various reasons which, as mentioned in the assessment order are summarised here in below: Para Observations of the AO Submission of the assessee No 6.6.3(i) Details of faculty involved not During the course of assessment furnished proceedings no such information

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS has been deducted by various insurance companies on payments made by them. The disallowance was made for various reasons which, as mentioned in the assessment order are summarised here in below: Para Observations of the AO Submission of the assessee No 6.6.3(i) Details of faculty involved not During the course of assessment furnished proceedings no such information

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

TDS has been deducted by various insurance companies on payments made by them. The disallowance was made for various reasons which, as mentioned in the assessment order are summarised here in below: Para Observations of the AO Submission of the assessee No 6.6.3(i) Details of faculty involved not During the course of assessment furnished proceedings no such information