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)The decision of Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan Vs. CIT reported in 78 DTR 411 (Raj), wherein it is held as under :- The registration can be cancelled on the ground that the activity of the trust are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the object of the trust. In case there are violations as mentioned

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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