M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

Trust vs. ACIT (Exemption ), (2013 37 Taxman 285 ( Chennai Trib). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that had the Ld. CIT(A) considered this binding precedent, he would not have sustained the addition/adjustments made through intimation as issued by the CPC Bangalore. On the contrary the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders, mor e particularly, the impugned order

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

vii. Complying with all other provisions as required under the income tax or any other law. 10. The assessee has complied with all the above listed requirements and has not breached the trust entrusted by the Act while granting registration u/s 12A of the Act. 11. The apprehensions expressed on the basis of surmises and conjectures are incorrect, unjustified

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

vii. Complying with all other provisions as required under the income tax or any other law. 10. The assessee has complied with all the above listed requirements and has not breached the trust entrusted by the Act while granting registration u/s 12A of the Act. 11. The apprehensions expressed on the basis of surmises and conjectures are incorrect, unjustified

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

vii) Trust or institutions referred to in section 11. (2) Includes any income by way of any anonymous donation. (3) Income tax payable shall be the aggregate of the amount of income tax calculation on the income by way of any anonymous donation @ 30 %. (4) Amount of income tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total

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

vii) Trust or institutions referred to in section 11. (2) Includes any income by way of any anonymous donation. (3) Income tax payable shall be the aggregate of the amount of income tax calculation on the income by way of any anonymous donation @ 30 %. (4) Amount of income tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total

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

vii) The Ld. AR also pointed out that as per CBDT circular No.395 dated 24.09.1984 it was also clarified that the object of promotion of sports has to be treated as a charitable object and had the objects of the appellant not charitable, it would not have been granted benefit of exemption under section 10(23) of the Act till

M/S. BHANDARI GROUP OF HOSPITALS & INSTITUTIONS,INDORE vs. THE CIT - I, INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

vii. Complying with all other provisions as required under the income tax or any other law. The assessee Company has complied with all the above listed requirements and has not breached the trust entrusted by the Act Bhandari Group of Hospital & Institutions and the Central Government while granting registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act. Thus, the factual

M/S. BHANDARI GROUP OF HOSPITALS & INSTITUTIONS,INDORE vs. THE CIT - I, INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

vii. Complying with all other provisions as required under the income tax or any other law. The assessee Company has complied with all the above listed requirements and has not breached the trust entrusted by the Act Bhandari Group of Hospital & Institutions and the Central Government while granting registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act. Thus, the factual

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT, 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

vii) It shall be pertinent to note that there has been no change in the facts and circumstances of the case prevailing in the assessment year under consideration and those prevailing in the aforesaid assessment years. In such a situation, taking an adverse view in the assessment year under consideration by the learned AO is completely unjustified and unwarranted

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

vii) It shall be pertinent to note that there has been no change in the facts and circumstances of the case prevailing in the assessment year under consideration and those prevailing in the aforesaid assessment years. In such a situation, taking an adverse view in the assessment year under consideration by the learned AO is completely unjustified and unwarranted

THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. M/S. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

vii) It shall be pertinent to note that there has been no change in the facts and circumstances of the case prevailing in the assessment year under consideration and those prevailing in the aforesaid assessment years. In such a situation, taking an adverse view in the assessment year under consideration by the learned AO is completely unjustified and unwarranted

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

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

vii) ITO vs. M/s. Saaj Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 ITJ 103 (Trib.) Indore 15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that facts in the case of assessee(s) are distinguishable because both the lender companies are registered as Non Banking Finance Companies by Reserve Bank of India having sufficient share capital and reserve in 15 Agrawal Transport Corporation

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

vii) ITO vs. M/s. Saaj Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 ITJ 103 (Trib.) Indore 15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that facts in the case of assessee(s) are distinguishable because both the lender companies are registered as Non Banking Finance Companies by Reserve Bank of India having sufficient share capital and reserve in 15 Agrawal Transport Corporation

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

vii) ITO vs. M/s. Saaj Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 ITJ 103 (Trib.) Indore 15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that facts in the case of assessee(s) are distinguishable because both the lender companies are registered as Non Banking Finance Companies by Reserve Bank of India having sufficient share capital and reserve in 15 Agrawal Transport Corporation

SAMARTHAN CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Samarthan Centre For Dcit (Exemption) Development Support, Bhopal 36, Green Venue, बनाम/ Kolar Road Huzur, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats3998P Assessee By Shri Pradeep Ambastha & Ashish Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

36, Green Venue, बनाम/ Kolar Road Huzur, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAATS3998P Assessee by Shri Pradeep Ambastha & Ashish Goyal, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner