M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

section 194J of the Act. Arihand Charitable Trust Indore /ITANo.909/2019 14. We may turn to the facts of the case

SHRI JAIN SHWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK SUKRAT FUND KAODA COMMITTEE,INDORE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradshri Jain Shwetamber Cit (Exemption) Bhopal Murtipujak Sukrat Fund Vs. Kapda Committee, 11/12, Mahavir Marg, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan Aabts6859G Appellant By Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Date Of Hearing 15.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2020 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am. This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit

charitable trust registered under the then prevailing Public Trust Act. As claimed by the assessee that the assessee was registered u/s 12A of the Act (In short ‘I.T. Act’) w.e.f. 13.8.1973 and at that point of time Form No.10A was filed and this application was signed by the Treasurer Shri Shantilal Mehta. The assessee trust could not find copy

MAHAVIR KUND KUND KAHAN TRUST,BARHANPUR vs. CIT(E) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

charitable purposes. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee squarely apply to this case. The findings of the CIT that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) apply to the assessee-trust is, therefore, set aside.” Ld. AR also made an alternative submission that even otherwise section 13(1)(b), which denies exemption

CIT(E),BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SHRI MAHAVIR KUND KUND TRUST, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

charitable purposes. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee squarely apply to this case. The findings of the CIT that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) apply to the assessee-trust is, therefore, set aside.” Ld. AR also made an alternative submission that even otherwise section 13(1)(b), which denies exemption

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

charitable society registered u/s 12A of the Act. Registration u/s 12A is granted by CIT (Exemption), Bhopal. Thus, the jurisdiction of registration is with CIT (Exemption), Bhopal. 3. Basis of jurisdiction under the Act has been provided by CBDT under section 120(3) of the Act, which reads – “In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub-sections

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

charitable society registered u/s 12A of the Act. Registration u/s 12A is granted by CIT (Exemption), Bhopal. Thus, the jurisdiction of registration is with CIT (Exemption), Bhopal. 3. Basis of jurisdiction under the Act has been provided by CBDT under section 120(3) of the Act, which reads – “In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub-sections

DIVYASDHANA CHARITALLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE CIT (E) CIRCLE , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed in terms indicated above

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

section 80G(5B) is also applicable only to category (i) i.e. purely charitable trusts. Therefore, according to CIT(E), the categories falling under (ii) and (iii) are not eligible for approval u/s 80G(5). Ultimately, Ld. CIT(E), taking note of Object Clauses 4(r) and 4(s) of assessee as re- produced above, concluded that the assessee

DIVYASDHANA CHARITALLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE CIT (E) CIRCLE , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed in terms indicated above

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

section 80G(5B) is also applicable only to category (i) i.e. purely charitable trusts. Therefore, according to CIT(E), the categories falling under (ii) and (iii) are not eligible for approval u/s 80G(5). Ultimately, Ld. CIT(E), taking note of Object Clauses 4(r) and 4(s) of assessee as re- produced above, concluded that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

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

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

charitable purpose other than any anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution run by such trust or institution. 13. In the light of the above background of discussions of relevant scheme of the Act and provisions of section 115BBC, if we consider

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

charitable purpose other than any anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution run by such trust or institution. 13. In the light of the above background of discussions of relevant scheme of the Act and provisions of section 115BBC, if we consider

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

section\n12AB(4) w.e.f. 01.04.2022 by Finance Act, 2022 would not apply\nretrospectively:\n(i)\nITAT, Bangalore in Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust Vs. PCIT (Central)\n(2024) 162 taxmann.com 41 (Bangalore – Trib), order dated\n16.04.2024\n(ii)\nITAT, Jaipur in Centre for Development Communication Trust Vs. CIT,\nExemption (2024) 168 taxmann.com 90 (Jaipur – Trib.), order dated\n03.06.2024

M/S. M.P. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXCEMPTION , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

section 14. In CIT v. Janaki Ammal\nAyya Nadar Trust [1985] 153 ITR 159, the Madras High Court held that\nwhere the entire Income of the trust during the relevant assessment year had\nbeen applied for payment of tax, it had to be treated as having been applied\nfor charitable

NANCY ANN MILLER EDUCATIONAL TRUST,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-EXEMPTION, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Nancy Ann Miller Income-Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Ward-(Exemption), बनाम/ 64/67, Dhar Kothi, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaatn4010B Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

14 Nancy Ann Miller Educational Trust, Indore Assessment year 2018-19 10. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was engaged in charitable activities; that the registration granted to it by tax authorities u/s 12A was in force; that the assessee had been granted benefit of section

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

charitable trust. Sections 12A and 12AA detail the procedural requirements for making an application to claim exemptions under sections 11 and 12 by the assessee and the grant or rejection of such application by the commissioner. Thus, in my view, sections 12A and 12AA are only procedural in nature. Hence, it is not the registration u/s 12AA by itself that

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

14 of the Constitution of India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

14 of the Constitution of India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

charitable institutions and\ninstitutions engaged in public activity but there are certain conditions for that.\nA trust has to file its return of income, get its accounts audited, apply for\nregistration under section 12A. CBDT circular is of no help when a trust is\ndoing genuine work but it does not register it as a society, does not maintain\nproper

AIC- RNTU FOUNDATION,RAISEN vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2019-20

section 2(15) is applicable. 6.2 It is stated from above facts that, the activities of the society cannot said to be in the nature of charitable activities for public 11 AIC-RNTU Foundation /ITANo.940/2019 at large, but commercial in nature and also the activities are of a service provider/facilitator for which funds by way of grant