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 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

ab initio. Without prejudice to additional ground taken above: B. Apropos ground no. 1, 2 and 6 – Cancellation of the registration u/s 12AA retrospectively by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4), since activities of the assessee are genuine and are being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust and thus provisions of section 12AA

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

ab initio. Without prejudice to additional ground taken above: B. Apropos ground no. 1, 2 and 6 – Cancellation of the registration u/s 12AA retrospectively by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4), since activities of the assessee are genuine and are being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust and thus provisions of section 12AA

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

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

ab-initio in as much as the learned Pr. CIT, Central, Bhopal, has not been vested with the power to discharge the function of the Income-tax authority for purposes of section 12AB(4) of the Act considering the Notification No. 52 & 53 dated 22/10/2014 issued by the CBDT. 2. RELIANCE ON EX PARTE INTERNAL COMMUNICATION DT. 19.01.2024 ISSUED

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

SHRI MAHESHWARI JANKAIYAN TRUST ,INDORE vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

35 admeasuring 0.373 hectare at Rs. 1,60,11,305/- whereas on verification of sale deed it has been shown at Rs. 1,72,40,601/- (cost of land Rs. 1,61,87,407/- + stamp duty and registry charges at Rs. 10,53,184/-). Therefore the cost of land was undisclosed by Rs. 12,29,923/- and its source also

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

charitable trust. Thus, the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act may kindly be allowed to the assessee trust. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Jt. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, which is against the principles of natural

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

ab-inito, without jurisdiction and bad in law and it is prayed that the same very kindly be now quashed. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CITCA) erred in not appreciating and not accepting the contention of the assessee that the impugned reopening proceedings initiated in this case were

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

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

ab-inito, without jurisdiction and bad in law and it is prayed that the same very kindly be now quashed. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CITCA) erred in not appreciating and not accepting the contention of the assessee that the impugned reopening proceedings initiated in this case were

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

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

ab-inito, without jurisdiction and bad in law and it is prayed that the same very kindly be now quashed. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CITCA) erred in not appreciating and not accepting the contention of the assessee that the impugned reopening proceedings initiated in this case were