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

ii. Complying with the terms as enumerated in the deed of trust iii. Maintaining proper books of accounts iv. Investing of income in a manner that is in accordance with the law v. No diversion of income or the assets of the trust vi. Applying income only for charitable or religious purposes in terms of the deed of trust

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

ii. Complying with the terms as enumerated in the deed of trust iii. Maintaining proper books of accounts iv. Investing of income in a manner that is in accordance with the law v. No diversion of income or the assets of the trust vi. Applying income only for charitable or religious purposes in terms of the deed of trust

M/S SHISHUKUNJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,THE SHISHUKUNJ INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, GRAM JHALARIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX. AAYKAR BHAWAN,

trust which is evident from such observation\nand/or decision made by the Ld. PCIT. In fact, on that score alone the order\npassed by the Ld. PCIT is also found to be bad in law and liable to be quashed.\nWith the aforesaid observations we thus, quash the impugned order passed by\nthe Ld. PCIT.\n24. The assessee's appeal

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

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

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

35,000.00\n65,12,739.00\n62,00,000.00\n5,71,10,671.10\nThanking you,\nYours faithfully,\nFor National Law Institute University\nV. 10/25\n(Vivek Bakshi)\nRegistrar\nDated: 07.07.2025\nAR(F)\nNational Law Institute University\nITA No. 423/Ind/2024 – AY 2015-16\n19. On a careful reading of above document filed by assessee, we find that\nthere are significant amounts

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

35,834/- shown by the appellant during the year under consideration as under: Operating Receipts S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Advertisement (Rozgar Aur Nirman) 23680953 2 Sale of Newpaper (Rozgar Aur Nirman) 15536473 ITA 280 of 2014 and ITA 692 of 2013 7 MP Madhyam 3 Sale of Books: R.K. Laxman Rs.13440 Images of MP Rs. 14175 Corporate Book

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

35,834/- shown by the appellant during the year under consideration as under: Operating Receipts S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Advertisement (Rozgar Aur Nirman) 23680953 2 Sale of Newpaper (Rozgar Aur Nirman) 15536473 ITA 280 of 2014 and ITA 692 of 2013 7 MP Madhyam 3 Sale of Books: R.K. Laxman Rs.13440 Images of MP Rs. 14175 Corporate Book

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

II(1) Mumbai (supra) has considered the issue of holding conference, seminar to educate its members is incidental to the object of the trust or not. The relevant part of is reproduced as under: “14. The moot question for our determination is whether the assessee is pursuing its objects as per the provisions of section

M/S. DEVI SHAKUNTALA THKARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT ,CENTRAL, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

35 to 45 specified in the notification of Page 5 of 17 Devi Shakuntala Thakaral Charitable Foundation Government of India bearing number S.O. 2752 dated the 22nd October, 2014. 10. Analyzing the impact of Para No. (a) and the Schedule of this Notification, Ld. AR submitted that the CBDT has notified that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Bhopal shall

DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. VANASHPATI SMRITI SHIKSHA SAMITI, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) & C.O. No.33/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (Exemption) Vanashpati Smriti Bhopal Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Vs. P.A. No. Aadts0547H Appellant By Shri P.K. Mitra Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Pavan Ved, Ar Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

35. Now we turn to the Assessee’s Cross-objection. The solitary ground raised by the assessee in cross-objection is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing repayment of loan as “application of income” for section 11. Vanshpati Smriti Shiksha Samiti ITA No.24/Ind/2021 & CO No. 33/Ind/2021 – AY 2016-17 36. Precisely stated the facts are such

NANCY ANN MILLER EDUCATIONAL TRUST,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-EXEMPTION, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Nancy Ann Miller Income-Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Ward-(Exemption), बनाम/ 64/67, Dhar Kothi, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaatn4010B Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

charitable trust engaged in imparting education. It is registered u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and entitled for exemption u/s 11/12; accordingly it claimed exemption u/s 11/12 in the return of income filed for AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 on the basis of audited accounts signed by auditors on 14.08.2018. When the AO processed intimation u/s 143(1

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

35,14,48,991/-, after disallowing the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assesse filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed appeal and did not grant any relief. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal and now before us. 4. The primary grievance

SAVITRI BAI JHAWAR SEWA NYAS,KHANDWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2020-21 Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Ito (Exemption ) Nyas, Indore Viklang Bal Sewa Ashram, बनाम/ Bt College Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats5055P Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

35 is reproduced below: "Appellant is a Public Charitabletrust registered u/s12A. Despitetimely filing of Audit report in Form 10BB and Income TaxReturn it was denied deduction u/s 11 and entire receipts have been treated as Income and has been taxed exorbitantly while processing the Return by CPO u/s143(1)(a). For rectification application u/s 154 was made which was rejected

NAVRATNA SURAT FOUNDATION ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CPC /ACIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Navratna Sukrat Foundation Cpc, बनाम/ 35, Tilak Nagar Bangalore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabtn7221 K Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri Apurva Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2023

35, Tilak Nagar Bangalore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AABTN7221 K Assessee by Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri Apurva Mehta, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 16.09.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income

SHRI JAN SEWA SANKALP SANSTHAN,SEHORE vs. EXEMPTION WARD, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Jan Sewa Sankalp Assistant Director Of Sansthan, Income Tax, बनाम/ 16, Cpc, Opp. New Collector Office, Bangalore Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aagas4432 B Assessee By Shri Moksha Solanki, Ca & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

35 of first-appeal filed to CIT(A) but the department sent order of first-appeal to sahunk.associates@gmail.com which was email address of assessee’s erstwhile counsel. Hence, the impugned order did not reach to assessee and the erstwhile counsel also did not inform assessee. Subsequently, with the assistance of new counsel after lapse of time, the assessee came

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

ii) ACIT vs. Narmada Extrusion Ltd. (2012) 19 ITJ 202 Trib – Indore (iii) M/s. Pramila Investment and Finance Limited Vs. ITO (2013)22 ITJ 149 (iv) CIT vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd.(2014) 367 ITR 0306 (v) CIT vs. N Tarika Properties Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2013)86 CCH 0368 (vi) ITO vs. Vaibhav Cotton

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

ii) ACIT vs. Narmada Extrusion Ltd. (2012) 19 ITJ 202 Trib – Indore (iii) M/s. Pramila Investment and Finance Limited Vs. ITO (2013)22 ITJ 149 (iv) CIT vs. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd.(2014) 367 ITR 0306 (v) CIT vs. N Tarika Properties Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2013)86 CCH 0368 (vi) ITO vs. Vaibhav Cotton