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

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

section 13(1)(b) are not applicable in the case of the assesse which is purely religious trust. The CIT(E) itself has accepted the fact that the assesse is a public religious trust and accepted some of the objects as religious but other objects are treated as charitable in nature. The mere mentioning of word “ Islamic World

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 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. 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

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

1), Mumbai v. Bhansali Trust [2015] 63 taxmann.com 56 (Mumbai- Trib.) (PB58-64) it was held that mere non-intimation of amendments in trust deed to department cannot ipso facto lead to cancellation of registration under section 12AA(3) because the statutory requirement of cancellation of registration contained in section 12AA(3) prescribes that the cancellation of registration cannot

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

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

1), Mumbai v. Bhansali Trust [2015] 63 taxmann.com 56 (Mumbai- Trib.) (PB58-64) it was held that mere non-intimation of amendments in trust deed to department cannot ipso facto lead to cancellation of registration under section 12AA(3) because the statutory requirement of cancellation of registration contained in section 12AA(3) prescribes that the cancellation of registration cannot

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. 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)

1) is a serious infirmity in the order for which the same is invalid.--Kashiram Aggarwalla vs. Union of India (1965) 56 ITR 14 (SC) : TC69R.660 and S. Narayanappa vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 741 (All) : TC51R.651 distinguished; Sunanda Rani Jain vs. Union of India 1975 CTR (Del) 135 : (1975) 99 ITR 391 (Del) : TC69R.693 overruled; Judgment and order

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

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

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