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 TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

charitable activity as per the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act, and there is no change in the aforesaid activity and hence withdrawal of registration u/s.12AB(4) of the Act on the ground that the activities of the trust are not in accordance with the objects of the trust without pointing any such "specified violations" are wholly erroneous

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 Purpose’ which is the last limb of section 2(15) of the Act. 32. In the light of above organizational structure developed in India for development and promotion of game of cricket, we may point out that during the period under consideration pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee hosted two IPL 52 M.P. Cricket Association matches on behalf

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

69 of the paper book. The assesse also filed declaration to the fact that there is no change in the objects and activities of the assessee trust since inception which is placed at page no.70 of the paper book. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee statistics all the conditions prescribed in the proviso to section

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

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

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. GYAN SAGAR SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Gyan Sagar Society, Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Mahesh Thahirani, Vs. Income Tax-Circle 1(1), L, Triveni Colony, Indore Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Akgpj5075N Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Morish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 17.7.2018 Date Of 26.7.2018 Pronouncement

trust or institution or it is ancillary or incidental to the dominant object which is charitable. Reiterating its earlier view in CIT v Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 772) the Supreme Court said in Surat Art Silk case (supra) that if the primary purpose is advancement of objects for general public utility, the institution would remain charitable, even

BHARTIYA AADARSH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhartiya Aadarsh Deputy Commissioner Of Shikshan Samiti, Income-Tax (Exemption), Manas Bhawan, Bhopal बनाम/ Sanjit Road, Vs. Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabab2693N Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, C.A. & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024

charitable purpose of advancing education. The AO, based on an information from AIMS Module of ITBA regarding cash deposited by assessee in bank a/c during demonetization period, issued notice dated 28.11.2017 u/s 142(1) calling the assessee to file return of AY 2017-18 by 28.12.2017. The assessee failed to comply with such notice. Subsequently, the AO issued query notices

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

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

PROF. RAJENDRA SINGH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU AND ITO (EXEMPTION), UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

charitable society (solely for educational purpose) registered u/s. 12AA and 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Thus, the disallowance of exemption is liable to be deleted and tax should not be levied upon the assessee society running solely for educational purpose. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case