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

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

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

BISA NEEMA PANCHAYAT BHAWAN TRUST,M.G ROAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) BHOPAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaa.Y. : 2023-24 Bisa Neema Panchayat Commissioner Of Income- Bhawan Trust, Tax (Exemption), बनाम/ 285, M.G. Road, Bhopal Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactb4287E Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A. & Ar Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024

charitable-cum-religious’ body is not acceptable as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that what needs to be examined is whether or not the objects/activities are for the benefit of a particular religious community/ caste. That is the point for which the CIT(E) precisely show-caused assessee

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’ mentioned in section 2(15) of the I.T Act. 4.1.5.5 In the above context it is also necessary to reiterate that the legislature has stipulated that the Assessing Authorities are to examine whether the activity related to general object of public utility was carried out in any commercial manner as discussed at length in the preceding paras

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 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. M. P. COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (EXEMPYION) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

34,618/- and wrongly treating as surplus of assessee ignoring the submissions made on record. 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred in making addition of liability of Rs. 76,36,365/- as income of assessee on wrong basis and ignoring submissions made on record. ITA No. 177/Ind/2022

M/S. M. P. COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (EXEMPYION) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

34,618/- and wrongly treating as surplus of assessee ignoring the submissions made on record. 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred in making addition of liability of Rs. 76,36,365/- as income of assessee on wrong basis and ignoring submissions made on record. ITA No. 177/Ind/2022

M/S. BARKATUIIAH VISHWAVIDYALAYA ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

charitable trust. Sections 12A and 12AA detail the procedural requirements for making an application to claim exemptions under sections 11 and 12 by the assessee and the grant or rejection of such application by the commissioner. Thus, in my view, sections 12A and 12AA are only procedural in nature. Hence, it is not the registration u/s 12AA by itself that

SHRI MANUEL MEDA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, Cross Objection by the assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradit(Ss)A No.89/Ind/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit 1(1) M/S. L.N. Gupta Mathur Vaishya बनाम/ Charitable Trust Bhopal Vs. E-1/55, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatl4820E

section 153C is without jurisdiction and the same is bad in law. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO erred in denying benefit of deduction u/s 11(2) of the Act. That the Learned erred in not quashing charging of interest of Rs.1379/- u/s 234B of the Act when there is no liability of advance tax.” 5. From perusal

M/S. DEVI SHAKUNTALA THKARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Devi Shakuntala Dcit Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatd2943B

trust or section 10(23C)(iv), 10(23C)(v), institution as mentioned in section 11(3)(d) 10(23C)(vi) or 10(23C)(via) From the above table it is evident that none of the conditions as mentioned in section 11(3) have been triggered in the instant case. Even if it had been so, addition if any would have

SHRIDHAR GYAN PRASAR PARMARTHIK TRUST, RAJGAD,RAJGAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, assessee’s appeal in 9

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Shri Shridhar Gyan Prasar Parmarthik Trust Rajgad Pan :Aafts0410D : Appellant

34 CCH 0108, 150 TTJ 0452: (2012), 3. Umaid Charitable Trust vs. Union of India & Ors., HC Raj., (2008)218 CTR 0030” 5. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. CIT(E) and also submitted that approval u/s 80G of the Act should not be granted to the assessee as it is solely running

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN,CHULGIRI BHOPAL vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Trust deed. Such amendments will not signify that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12A of the Act is rendered nugatory. 13. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the care are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(E) erred in cancelling the registration u/s 12A of the Act granted to the assessee since

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN,BHOPAL vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Trust deed. Such amendments will not signify that the registration granted to the assessee under section 12A of the Act is rendered nugatory. 13. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the care are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(E) erred in cancelling the registration u/s 12A of the Act granted to the assessee since

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 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