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 under the provisions of sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act 1961, may please be noted.(P.P. 24 to 32 of the paper book) 4) The present Trustees and the Auditors of this trust are 3rd/ 4th generation, in a very long period of 75 years after the institution of this trust in the year

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

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

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

Charitable Trust Indore /ITANo.909/2019 4] The appellant reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it. 1] GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 – CHALLENGING THE DEMAND AS CREATED ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT-DEDUCTION OF TAX AND INTEREST ON SUCH SHORT-DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO HOSWIN INCINERATOR PRIVATE LIMITED

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 or religious purposes in terms of the deed of trust. vii. Complying with all other provisions as required under the income tax or any other law. 10. The assessee has complied with all the above listed requirements and has not breached the trust entrusted by the Act while granting registration u/s 12A of the Act. 11. The apprehensions expressed

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 or religious purposes in terms of the deed of trust. vii. Complying with all other provisions as required under the income tax or any other law. 10. The assessee has complied with all the above listed requirements and has not breached the trust entrusted by the Act while granting registration u/s 12A of the Act. 11. The apprehensions expressed

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

trust based on religious tenets - Activities of trust both charitable and religious - benefits not exclusively meant for particular religious community - trust not disqualified to claim exemption - Income-tax Act, 1961." 6.Income tax Officer vs. Gaudiua Granth Anuved Trust (2014) 23 ITJ 141 (Trib.-Agra) ITAT, Agra Bench "Income – U/s 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - corpus Donation - Whether

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

trust based on religious tenets - Activities of trust both charitable and religious - benefits not exclusively meant for particular religious community - trust not disqualified to claim exemption - Income-tax Act, 1961." 6.Income tax Officer vs. Gaudiua Granth Anuved Trust (2014) 23 ITJ 141 (Trib.-Agra) ITAT, Agra Bench "Income – U/s 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - corpus Donation - Whether

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

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

section 12AB(4) w.e.f. 01.04.2022 by Finance Act, 2022 would not apply retrospectively: (i) ITAT, Bangalore in Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust Vs. PCIT (Central) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 41 (Bangalore – Trib), order dated 16.04.2024 (ii) ITAT, Jaipur in Centre for Development Communication Trust Vs. CIT, Exemption (2024) 168 taxmann.com 90 (Jaipur – Trib.), order dated 03.06.2024 (iii) ITA Delhi

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

29 M.P. Cricket Association I.T Act . If the same does not fall within the parameters of conditions specified in sections 2(15) and 11 of the I.T Act, the assessee would not be entitled to avail benefits of section 11 and 12 of the I. T. Act. In this backdrop as pointed out in the preceding paras examination

DAWAT E ISLAMI,RAIPUR vs. THE CIT ( EXEMPTION ) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidawat E Islami Chhttisgarh Cit(Exemption) Sanjay Nagar R D A Plot Raipur Bhopal Vs. Raipur, Chhttisgarh (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadtd 7213 R Assessee By Shri Ankit Chowksi, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

29 objects, 3 objects numbered as 1 to 3 are religious in nature and some other objects are charitable in nature which makes the trust as composite trust i.e. charitable and religious trust and therefore, the assessee is found to involved in violation of section

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

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 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

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. RISHIRAJ K.M.B. EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: Na

charitable institutions. On the basis of the search the notices u/s 153C were issued in the case of the assessee. During the course of the assessment the Ld. A.O observed that the assessee Society has given advances to certain persons who were connected with the office bearers and as such the transaction are covered

THE ACIT, 2(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. UJJAIN SHIKSHAN SHODH SAMITI, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

Charitable Trust vs. CIT (1988) 172 ITR 373 (SC) it was held by the Bombay High Court that even ACIT vs.Ujjain Shikshan Sangh Samiti ignoring the amendment to section 12, which means that even before the word appearing to parenthesis in the present section 12, it cannot be (1991) 189 ITR 5 (Bom). The position after the amendment

M/S. HERO'S EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Charitable Trust, 63 taxmann.com 53 (P&H), could carry on other business as decided by the trustees, it would not per se dis-entitle trust from being considered for registration u/s 10(23C)(vi). In the case of ITO vs. Shri Balaji Prem Asharam, 64 taxmann.com 112 (Chd), where assessee- trust was carrying out activity of education during relevant year

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