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

section 13 cannot be a basis for cancellation of registration u/s 12AA. Impugned order cancelling the registration u/s 12AA ought to be quashed. D. Apropos ground no. 7 – payment of excess salary, funds of the charitable trust were siphoned out and used by the members of the charitable society, fee receipts not fully reflected in the audited accounts

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

section 13 cannot be a basis for cancellation of registration u/s 12AA. Impugned order cancelling the registration u/s 12AA ought to be quashed. D. Apropos ground no. 7 – payment of excess salary, funds of the charitable trust were siphoned out and used by the members of the charitable society, fee receipts not fully reflected in the audited accounts

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 activities were lauded. It has been claimed by the appellant that the Assessing Officer accepted the nature of work being done by the aforesaid trust which was evident from the assessment order itself regarding the bonafides of the work being carried on had been made anywhere in the body of the order u] s 143(3) / 115BBC. 3.6 During

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 activities were lauded. It has been claimed by the appellant that the Assessing Officer accepted the nature of work being done by the aforesaid trust which was evident from the assessment order itself regarding the bonafides of the work being carried on had been made anywhere in the body of the order u] s 143(3) / 115BBC. 3.6 During

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

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 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 25.01.2024 of the Commissioner

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

section 69A\nof the Act.\n4. The Ld. NFAC confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal of the Appellant. Being aggrieved\nby the said action and the impugned addition of Rs.76,38,102/-, the present Appellant is before\nthis Hon'ble Tribunal.\nSubmission before Ld. AO during Assessment Proceedings Not Considered by AO:\nShri Parshvanath Digambar Jain Dharmik and Samajik

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

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

section 263 on 28.12.2017 thereby the expenditure of Rs.98,45,124/- on account of Vaman Drishti Shivir has been disallowed as application of income for charitable purpose. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assesse filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the assesse

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

M/S CHOUHAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 254. But still the Ld. CIT did not grant registration w.e.f. 01.04.1999. Against the order dated 11.08.2017, the assessee has once again approached this Bench. Therefore, this is second round of litigation before us on the same issue. Page 2 of 6 Chouhan Education Society 3. The grievance of assessee is very limited i.e. the registration as applied

SHRI NAVKAR PAARIVAR,INDORE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Navkar Pariwar Cit (Exemption) Indore बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aajts 8848 R Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.12.2022

charitable purposes. It submitted return of income declaring a total income of Rs. Nil, which was subjected to scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) / 142(1) were issued. Finally, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding and observed that the assessment-order passed

ARUVA FOUNDATION,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for

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

32 and 48 mentioned in Memorandum of Association (MOA) of assessee as ‘commercial’ in nature and show-caused assessee. In reply, the asessee explained that the impugned objects were ‘charitable’ in nature and not ‘commercial’ while agreeing to amend its MOA if the CIT(E) desired. Ultimately, to satisfy the CIT(E), the assessee amended its MOA and filed copy

ARUVA FOUNDATION,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for

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

32 and 48 mentioned in Memorandum of Association (MOA) of assessee as ‘commercial’ in nature and show-caused assessee. In reply, the asessee explained that the impugned objects were ‘charitable’ in nature and not ‘commercial’ while agreeing to amend its MOA if the CIT(E) desired. Ultimately, to satisfy the CIT(E), the assessee amended its MOA and filed copy

DISHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,RAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

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

Charitable Trusts v. PCIT Mumbai I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021.” 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has clearly pointed out various instances of non-compliance on the part of the assessee of law and therefore, there is a violation/non-compliance of other law as per sub-clause (i)(B) to section 12AB