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 Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) v. CIT (Exemptions) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 33 (Lucknow - Trib.) Hon’ble Tribunal while dealing with the issue of Cancellation of registration under Section 12AA (iii) of the I.T Act held that: Para "Having carefully examined the order of the Id. Commissioner of 13. Income Tax (Exemptions) in the light of the rival submissions, we find

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 trust as mentioned in section 115BBC (2) of the Act and hence provisions of sub-section (1) of the section 115BBC of the Act are squarely applicable in the case of the assessee as in case of the assessee, anonymous donations as per section 115BBC(3) has been found. 4.40 Without any prejudice to the above, it is also

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 trust as mentioned in section 115BBC (2) of the Act and hence provisions of sub-section (1) of the section 115BBC of the Act are squarely applicable in the case of the assessee as in case of the assessee, anonymous donations as per section 115BBC(3) has been found. 4.40 Without any prejudice to the above, it is also

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

250 (Mad).” 15. Ld. AR next submitted that he would also like to address one more point adopted by Ld. PCIT(Central) for cancellation of registration. He submitted that the Ld. PCIT(Central) has alleged violation of section 13(3) by assessee [on account of payments made to or for the benefit of interested persons] and noted that the violation

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

charitable purpose and the machinery part of section 11(4A). Further, the obligation under section 11(4A) to maintain separate books of account in respect of such receipts is to ensure that the quantitative limit imposed by sub-clause (ii) to section 2(15) can be computed and ascertained in an objective manner. 171. Therefore, pure charity in the sense

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

charitable purpose and the machinery part of section 11(4A). Further, the obligation under section 11(4A) to maintain separate books of account in respect of such receipts is to ensure that the quantitative limit imposed by sub-clause (ii) to section 2(15) can be computed and ascertained in an objective manner. 171. Therefore, pure charity in the sense

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

charitable purpose and the machinery part of section 11(4A). Further, the obligation under section 11(4A) to maintain separate books of account in respect of such receipts is to ensure that the quantitative limit imposed by sub-clause (ii) to section 2(15) can be computed and ascertained in an objective manner. 171. Therefore, pure charity in the sense

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

charitable purpose and the machinery part of section 11(4A). Further, the obligation under section 11(4A) to maintain separate books of account in respect of such receipts is to ensure that the quantitative limit imposed by sub-clause (ii) to section 2(15) can be computed and ascertained in an objective manner. 171. Therefore, pure charity in the sense

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST REGISTRATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10B FOR YEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 CIRCULAR NO. 10 (F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-1), DATED 22-5-2019 Under the provisions of section 12A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act) where the total income of a trust on institution as computed under the Act without

THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. M/S. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 passed by the learned Indore Development Authority ITANos.847 870 & 1355/Ind/2016 Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Bhopal, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12 in response to the appeal filed against the Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax, 5(1) Exemption, Bhopal 1.That, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT, 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 passed by the learned Indore Development Authority ITANos.847 870 & 1355/Ind/2016 Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Bhopal, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12 in response to the appeal filed against the Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax, 5(1) Exemption, Bhopal 1.That, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 passed by the learned Indore Development Authority ITANos.847 870 & 1355/Ind/2016 Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Bhopal, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12 in response to the appeal filed against the Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax, 5(1) Exemption, Bhopal 1.That, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly

SHREE TEKCHANDJI MAHARAJ TRUST,UJJAIN vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned order". The Relevant Assessment year is 2016-17 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s 147 rws 144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee

CHARCHIT GARG,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 of the Act and upholding the addition of Rs. 4,58,090/- for the reason that the report in form No. 10DA was not filed within the time prescribed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. J-CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee complied with all requisite for claiming

PROF. RAJENDRA SINGH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU AND ITO (EXEMPTION), UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.02.2024 which has emanated from the order of the Assessing Officer, CPC, Bengaluru passed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 12.03.2020. 2 I.T.A. No. 417/Ind/2024 Rajendra Singh Shikshan Samiti v. DCIT 2. It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is belatedly filed by 14 days

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

Trust vs. ACIT (Exemption ), (2013 37 Taxman 285 ( Chennai Trib). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that had the Ld. CIT(A) considered this binding precedent, he would not have sustained the addition/adjustments made through intimation as issued by the CPC Bangalore. On the contrary the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders, mor e particularly, the impugned order

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

Trust vs. ACIT (Exemption ), (2013 37 Taxman 285 ( Chennai Trib). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that had the Ld. CIT(A) considered this binding precedent, he would not have sustained the addition/adjustments made through intimation as issued by the CPC Bangalore. On the contrary the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders, mor e particularly, the impugned order