DIVYASDHANA CHARITALLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE CIT (E) CIRCLE , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed in terms indicated above

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

Trust, Indore. Vs. CIT(E), ITA No.138 & 139/Ind/2023 “Section 80G: (5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), only if it is established in India for a charitable

SANAND NYAS,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshisanand Nyas Cit(Exemption) 417 Trade House, 14/3 Bhopal बनाम/ South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aacts5253M Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

charitable activities before seeking provisional approval under Clause (iv) to First Proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act would ever be entitled to grant of final registration under Clause (iii) to First Proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act even after grant of provisional approval, which would make the relevant provisions of section 80G(5) otiose and defeat

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

iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act. 17. Therefore, in this ambiguity situation in circular No.8/2022 of CBDT dated 31.03.2022 and latest Circular No.6/2023 dated 24.05.2023, of the CBDT, we do not have any option but to condone the delay in filing application in Form No.10AB u/s 80G(5

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION,POLOGROUND, INDUSTRIAL STATE vs. EXEMPTION WARD INDORE, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G”.\nAssigning these reasons, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected applications for final\nregistration u/s 12AB/final approval u/s 80G and also cancelled the\nprovisions registration u/s 12AB/provisional approval u/s 80G. For the\nsake of immediate reference, we re-produce below the order passed by CIT(E)\nin the matter of section

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

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION,POLOGROUND, INDUSTRIAL STATE vs. EXEMPTION WARD INDORE, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G”.\nAssigning these reasons, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected applications for final\nregistration u/s 12AB/final approval u/s 80G and also cancelled the\nprovisions registration u/s 12AB/provisional approval u/s 80G. For the\nsake of immediate reference, we re-produce below the order passed by CIT(E)\nin the matter of section

BALAJI GAU SANRAKSHAN SANSTHAN,VIDISHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Charitable Trust, Mumbai Vs.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, ITAT No. 5111/Mum/2024, order\ndated 29.11.2024:\n\"6. The assessee in terms of the above provisions first applied for a\nprovisional approval under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to\nsubsection (5) of section 80G

BALAJI GAU SANRAKSHAN SANSTHAN,VIDISHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Charitable Trust, Mumbai Vs.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, ITAT No. 5111/Mum/2024, order\ndated 29.11.2024:\n\"6. The assessee in terms of the above provisions first applied for a\nprovisional approval under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to\nsubsection (5) of section 80G

CORPORATEN AREA BASKETBALL TRUST,INDORE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) Page 2 of 7 Corporaten Area Basketball Trust, Indore. ITA No. 447/Ind/2023 & ITA No. 77/Ind/2023 whereupon the CIT(E) granted provisional approval vide order dated 15.10.2021 for the period from 15.10.2021 to AY 2024-25. Thereafter, the assessee sought final approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) and for this purpose, filed application dated

CORPORATEN AREA BASKETBALL TRUST,INDORE vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION., BHOPAL

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

iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) Page 2 of 7 Corporaten Area Basketball Trust, Indore. ITA No. 447/Ind/2023 & ITA No. 77/Ind/2023 whereupon the CIT(E) granted provisional approval vide order dated 15.10.2021 for the period from 15.10.2021 to AY 2024-25. Thereafter, the assessee sought final approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) and for this purpose, filed application dated

BHAGWANDAS ZALANI FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(A). Further, there is no violation of\nsection 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) also because the language of that provision requires\nonly compliance of \"such requirements of any other law for the time being in\nforce by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its\nobjects\". The donation of Rs.40

WAKEUP FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the grounds of

Bench: Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.895 & 898/Ind/2024 (Hybrid Hearing) Wakeup Foundation, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 41/411, Jangampura, South Bhopal Rajmohalla, Mp - 452002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaw9534A (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 12AB and 80G of the Act. Considering the fact that the application of assessee was not considered on merit, we deem it appropriate to direct the CIT(E) to treat the application of assessee on merit and pass the order in accordance with law. Under similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT and Hon’ble Orissa High Court

WAKEUP FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the grounds of

Bench: Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.895 & 898/Ind/2024 (Hybrid Hearing) Wakeup Foundation, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 41/411, Jangampura, South Bhopal Rajmohalla, Mp - 452002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaw9534A (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 12AB and 80G of the Act. Considering the fact that the application of assessee was not considered on merit, we deem it appropriate to direct the CIT(E) to treat the application of assessee on merit and pass the order in accordance with law. Under similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT and Hon’ble Orissa High Court

BHAGWANDAS ZALANI FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(A). Further, there is no violation of\nsection 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) also because the language of that provision requires\nonly compliance of \"such requirements of any other law for the time being in\nforce by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its\nobjects\". The donation of Rs.40

DISHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,RAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of assessee are allowed

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

Charitable Trusts v. PCIT Mumbai I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021.” 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has clearly pointed out various instances of non-compliance on the part of the assessee of law and therefore, there is a violation/non-compliance of other law as per sub-clause (i)(B) to section 12AB

SETH PANNALALJI DHOOL CHANDJKI KATARIA PARMATHIK TRUST,INDORE vs. THEM CIT (EXEMPTION ), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniseth Paannalalji Cit, Exemption Dhoolchandji Kataria Bhopal Parmarthik Trust, बनाम/ 10-13, Industrial Area, Vs. Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aafts 2492 D Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta & C.A. Kaide Kangsawala Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.05.2023

80G(5)(i). 5. Ld. AR submitted that both of these reasons assigned by Ld. CIT(E) are not valid. He made following contentions to demonstrate this: (i) Regarding 1st reason, Ld. AR carried us to page no. 19, 25 and 29 of the Paper-Book where the copies of audited Income & Expenditure A/c of assessee- trust for the year

GOKULAM SEVA NYAS,1 RESHAM KENDRA ,GRAM KHAJURIYA SANWERC vs. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL, ROOM NO:201,II FLOOR, REAC, BHOPAL, REAC, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

iv) Delay cannot be condoned on 'fanciful stories'.\n(v)\n'Merit of case' cannot be considered in dealing with condonation.\n(vi)\nThere is no general proposition that 'mistake of counsel' by itself is\nalways a sufficient ground. It is always a question whether the\nmistake was bonafide or was merely a decision to cover an ulterior\npurpose such