SHRI PARSHVANATH DIGAMBAR JAIN DHARMIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHA,RAM GALI, NEEMUCH CANT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

173, wherein Paragraphs 24 and 25 clearly define the scope of the amendment wherein in\nparagraph 25(1), the concluding sentence is as under:-\n\"contributions received with a specific direction that they will form part of the corpus of the\ntrust or distribution will, however, not be regarded as income.\"\n18. Thus the relevant clause defining income in section

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION,POLOGROUND, INDUSTRIAL STATE vs. EXEMPTION WARD INDORE, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

173 Taxmann.com 151 (Cochin-Trib).\nv)\nITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Telangana State Chapter\nIndian Radiological & Imaging Association vs. Income Tax Officer (E) in\nIRTA No.255/Hyd/2023 Page 6 of 13 ITA Nos 208 and 209 of 2025\nAshritha The Dr U Sankaranarayana Raju Charitable Trust\nvi)\nITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Unicorpus Health Foundation

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION,POLOGROUND, INDUSTRIAL STATE vs. EXEMPTION WARD INDORE, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

173 Taxmann.com 151 (Cochin-Trib).\nv)\nITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Telangana State Chapter\nIndian Radiological & Imaging Association vs. Income Tax Officer (E) in\nIRTA No.255/Hyd/2023 Page 6 of 13 ITA Nos 208 and 209 of 2025\nAshritha The Dr U Sankaranarayana Raju Charitable Trust\nvi)\nITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Unicorpus Health Foundation

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

Trust's (1992) 3 SCC 390 a decision relating to property tax, the Supreme Court held that both qualitative and quantitative tests should be satisfied in view of specific language of Section 115(4)(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. Nevertheless it negated and rejected the argument that data for one year should be taken into consideration

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

Trust's (1992) 3 SCC 390 a decision relating to property tax, the Supreme Court held that both qualitative and quantitative tests should be satisfied in view of specific language of Section 115(4)(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. Nevertheless it negated and rejected the argument that data for one year should be taken into consideration

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

Trust's (1992) 3 SCC 390 a decision relating to property tax, the Supreme Court held that both qualitative and quantitative tests should be satisfied in view of specific language of Section 115(4)(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. Nevertheless it negated and rejected the argument that data for one year should be taken into consideration

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

Trust's (1992) 3 SCC 390 a decision relating to property tax, the Supreme Court held that both qualitative and quantitative tests should be satisfied in view of specific language of Section 115(4)(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. Nevertheless it negated and rejected the argument that data for one year should be taken into consideration

AARAMBH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaarambh Foundation Cit-(Exemption) 220 Saket Nagar Bhopal Saket Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabaa 0609F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

1. The Ld. CIT grossly erred in issuing order rejecting application for registration under section 12AB of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT grossly erred on facts and also in law by considering charitable activities as commercial activities and rejecting application for registration under section 12AB of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT grossly erred on facts and also