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

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

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

section, the following shall mean "specified violation", -- (a) Where any income derived from property held under trust, wholly or in part for charitable or religious purposes, has been applied, other than for the objects of the trust or institution; (e) any activity being carried out by the trust or institution (i) is not genuine or (ii) is not being carried

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

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

Charitable Purpose’ which is the last limb of section 2(15) of the Act. 32. In the light of above organizational structure developed in India for development and promotion of game of cricket, we may point out that during the period under consideration pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee hosted two IPL 52 M.P. Cricket Association matches on behalf

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

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/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.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.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/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 vs. DGIT, (Del) in W.P.No.4725/2012 and C.M. No. 9795/2012 dated 24th I.T.A.No. 232/Ind/2015-A.Y.2010-11 M/S.HERO’S EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL. Page 17 of 29 September, 2015, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “We find that it is an admitted fact in the present case that the only activity of the petitioner is that

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