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

65-72 Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3 ( Hon’ble ITAT-Agra) 9 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Meerut v. Shree 73-77 Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 249 (Delhi –Tribunal) 10 Order dated 13/05/2020 passed in case of Bhariya Kissan 78-86 Chartitable Club Trust, Roorkee v. The Income Tax officer Exemptions (Dehradun

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

65-72 Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3 ( Hon’ble ITAT-Agra) 9 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2, Meerut v. Shree 73-77 Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 249 (Delhi –Tribunal) 10 Order dated 13/05/2020 passed in case of Bhariya Kissan 78-86 Chartitable Club Trust, Roorkee v. The Income Tax officer Exemptions (Dehradun

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

charitable institutions and\ninstitutions engaged in public activity but there are certain conditions for that.\nA trust has to file its return of income, get its accounts audited, apply for\nregistration under section 12A. CBDT circular is of no help when a trust is\ndoing genuine work but it does not register it as a society, does not maintain\nproper

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

65,69,670/- and revenue expenditure of Rs.6,38,75,788/- resulting into a surplus of income over expenditure of Rs.1,26,93,882/-. However, the assessee had claimed the benefit u/s 11 of the I.T. Act by considering the capital expenditure of Rs.68,67,284/- as application of funds for charitable purposes. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

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

65,69,670/- and revenue expenditure of Rs.6,38,75,788/- resulting into a surplus of income over expenditure of Rs.1,26,93,882/-. However, the assessee had claimed the benefit u/s 11 of the I.T. Act by considering the capital expenditure of Rs.68,67,284/- as application of funds for charitable purposes. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

M/S SHISHUKUNJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,THE SHISHUKUNJ INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, GRAM JHALARIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX. AAYKAR BHAWAN,

trust which is evident from such observation\nand/or decision made by the Ld. PCIT. In fact, on that score alone the order\npassed by the Ld. PCIT is also found to be bad in law and liable to be quashed.\nWith the aforesaid observations we thus, quash the impugned order passed by\nthe Ld. PCIT.\n24. The assessee's appeal

M/S. DEVI SHAKUNTALA THKARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Devi Shakuntala Dcit Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatd2943B

65 – order pronounced on 19.03.1984 – Para 10 – “Section 263 can be invoked by the Commissioner only when he prima facie finds that the order made by the ITO was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Both these factors must simultaneously exist. An order that is erroneous must also have resulted in loss of revenue or prejudicial

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

trust was 'charity' under the fourth head 'any other object of general public utility', it was permissible for such an object of general public utility, to augment its income by engaging in trading or commercial activities. In retrospect, it seems that it would have been better for Parliament to have deleted the fourth head of charity "any other object

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

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

charitable in nature and available to public at large. We, thus, note that the inserted amended objects are not detrimental to the old objects. 10. We observe that Mehta Jiveraj Makandas & Parekh Trust, ITAT, Mumbai ITA No.2212/Mum/2010 (PB 65-70) wherein it was held that “The requirement of intimation is mentioned only in the Form No. 10A and even

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN,BHOPAL vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

charitable in nature and available to public at large. We, thus, note that the inserted amended objects are not detrimental to the old objects. 10. We observe that Mehta Jiveraj Makandas & Parekh Trust, ITAT, Mumbai ITA No.2212/Mum/2010 (PB 65-70) wherein it was held that “The requirement of intimation is mentioned only in the Form No. 10A and even

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Charitable Trust (supra) dealt with only the issue/terminology of “whichever is earlier” which is applicable to new trust which have created recently, and it does not deal with condonation of delay in case of old trust who made the application before ld CIT(E ) very late, that is, the issue mention in clause (iii) of 3rd proviso of section

ARUVA FOUNDATION,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

65 ITR 611 (SC) to hold that all objects must be charitable and that application of income to charitable purpose is immaterial. Further, the CIT(E) has also relied upon Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC) wherein it was held that if the trust-deed provides many charitable objects and the trustees are given uncontrolled discretion

ARUVA FOUNDATION,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

65 ITR 611 (SC) to hold that all objects must be charitable and that application of income to charitable purpose is immaterial. Further, the CIT(E) has also relied upon Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC) wherein it was held that if the trust-deed provides many charitable objects and the trustees are given uncontrolled discretion

MAHAKAVI PANDIT BHURAMAL SAMAJIK SAHKAR NYAS,SAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

65 taxmann.com 239 (Chand.) 5. Kapurthala Improvement Trust 60 taxmann.com 301 (Asr.) 4. He submitted that under the facts of the present case, the Ld. CIT ought to have granted the registration. 5. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. supported the order of the Ld. CIT and submitted that there is no ambiguity under the law. The assessee was required

MAHAKAVI PANDIT BHURAMAL SAMAJIK SAHKAR NYAS,SAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

65 taxmann.com 239 (Chand.) 5. Kapurthala Improvement Trust 60 taxmann.com 301 (Asr.) 4. He submitted that under the facts of the present case, the Ld. CIT ought to have granted the registration. 5. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. supported the order of the Ld. CIT and submitted that there is no ambiguity under the law. The assessee was required

SHRI GHANSHYAMDAS JI VYAS TRUST,RATLAM vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ghanshyamdas Ji Cit(Exemption), Vyas Trust, Bhopal बनाम/ 99/100, Tapasya Bhawan, Rajaswa Colony, Vs. Ratlam (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaxts 3881 N Assessee By Shri Girdhar Garg, Ar Revenue By Ms.Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2023

65 to 80 years having one platform to serve the society with in its capacity. Looking to the facts and circumstances and the charitable activities done by the trust please grant the permanent registration to the trust so the social work will be regularly carrying by such old age trustees. Sir, some of the NGOs doing charity in silent mode

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 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