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

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 organization/associations which are carrying out the objects of general public utility but only to hit those entities which are wearing the mask of charity but in reality, they are carrying out commercial activities. (xiv) Activities of appellant association have been duly examined by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Admin.) by initiating proceedings under section 12AA(3) twice

DAWAT E ISLAMI,RAIPUR vs. THE CIT ( EXEMPTION ) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidawat E Islami Chhttisgarh Cit(Exemption) Sanjay Nagar R D A Plot Raipur Bhopal Vs. Raipur, Chhttisgarh (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadtd 7213 R Assessee By Shri Ankit Chowksi, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

56 SOT 522 2.Acharya Sewa Nyas Uttaranchal v. CIT 13 SOT 54 (Delhi) 3. M.L. Nambyar Saarc Law Charitable Trust vs. Union of India 269 ITR 556 (Delhi HC) 4. N.N. Desai Charitable Trust vs. CIT 246 ITR 452 (Gujarat HC) 5. Indo-German Studies v. DIT (Ex.) Hyderabad 74 taxmann.com 66 (Hyd. Trib.) 4. On the other hand

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

56,19,050/- which is more than the prescribed monetary limit for claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and therefore, the said claim of the assessee cannot be allowed. During the assessment proceeding the assesse’s vide letter dated 30.01.2021 explained that the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act was wrongly made however

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

56. In G.S. 1's case (supra) it was contended by the revenue that GS1 (India) had acquired intellectual property rights from GS1 (Belgium) and thereafter received registration fees from third parties in India. This was sought to be equated to royalty payments. It was also contended that GS1 (India) had huge surpluses of receipts over expenditure and that payments

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

56. In G.S. 1's case (supra) it was contended by the revenue that GS1 (India) had acquired intellectual property rights from GS1 (Belgium) and thereafter received registration fees from third parties in India. This was sought to be equated to royalty payments. It was also contended that GS1 (India) had huge surpluses of receipts over expenditure and that payments

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN,BHOPAL vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

charitable and the trust continues to be eligible for registration under section 12A. Principle of consistency is also in favour of the assessee as based on the amended objects renewal of approval under section 80G has already been granted and factual and legal position remaining the Digamber Jain ITA No.287 & 289/Ind/2020 same, we see no justification for rejecting the application

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

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

charitable and the trust continues to be eligible for registration under section 12A. Principle of consistency is also in favour of the assessee as based on the amended objects renewal of approval under section 80G has already been granted and factual and legal position remaining the Digamber Jain ITA No.287 & 289/Ind/2020 same, we see no justification for rejecting the application

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

56. In G.S. 1's case (supra) it was contended by the revenue that GS1 (India) had acquired intellectual property rights from GS1 (Belgium) and thereafter received registration fees from third parties in India. This was sought to be equated to royalty payments. It was also contended that GS1 (India) had huge surpluses of receipts over expenditure and that payments

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

56. In G.S. 1's case (supra) it was contended by the revenue that GS1 (India) had acquired intellectual property rights from GS1 (Belgium) and thereafter received registration fees from third parties in India. This was sought to be equated to royalty payments. It was also contended that GS1 (India) had huge surpluses of receipts over expenditure and that payments

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

56. In G.S. 1's case (supra) it was contended by the revenue that GS1 (India) had acquired intellectual property rights from GS1 (Belgium) and thereafter received registration fees from third parties in India. This was sought to be equated to royalty payments. It was also contended that GS1 (India) had huge surpluses of receipts over expenditure and that payments

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

56. In G.S. 1's case (supra) it was contended by the revenue that GS1 (India) had acquired intellectual property rights from GS1 (Belgium) and thereafter received registration fees from third parties in India. This was sought to be equated to royalty payments. It was also contended that GS1 (India) had huge surpluses of receipts over expenditure and that payments

THE NIMAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KHANDWA vs. THE EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanithe Nimar Educational Society Cit(E) Harsud Road, Civil Lines Bhopal Vs. East Nimar, Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabtt 1409 K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023

trust which is not eligible for exemption is required to be allowed while computing total income of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DCIT(E) vs. Petroleum Sports Promotion Board (supra) has held as under: “ 7. The learned standing counsel for the revenue submitted that the order of the Tribunal is untenable since it indirectly

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

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

Charitable Trust and Available Finance Ltd. sources of which was not explained. Based on above allegations, statutory notices u/s 148, 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee company. In response to the notices as issued above, the assessee company made compliances from time to time. Considering the replies of the assessee

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

Charitable Trust and Available Finance Ltd. sources of which was not explained. Based on above allegations, statutory notices u/s 148, 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee company. In response to the notices as issued above, the assessee company made compliances from time to time. Considering the replies of the assessee

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

Charitable Trust and Available Finance Ltd. sources of which was not explained. Based on above allegations, statutory notices u/s 148, 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee company. In response to the notices as issued above, the assessee company made compliances from time to time. Considering the replies of the assessee

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)

Trust and others vs. ITO (2015) 9 TMI 902 (I.T.A.T., Amr) 3. CIT vs. Jodhpur Development Authority (2016) 139 DTR (Raj.) 1 4. ACIT vs. Modipon Ltd. & Vice-versa (2015) 12 TMI 460 (I.T.A.T., Del.) Indore Development Authority ITANos.847 870 & 1355/Ind/2016 37. We, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and following the judicial precedence as well