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

charitable activity. Income over expenditure shown in the profit and loss account at Rs. 1,96,50,937/- was treated as business income and further based on the seized documents additions for bogus expenses on salary at Rs.20,48,173/- were disallowed u/s 37 and also addition of Rs.69,70,505/- was made for unexplained money on account of business

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

money – Addition of Donations as cash credit and denying benefit not justified – Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68.” CIT (E) v. Patanjali Yogpeeth (NYAS) (2018) 252 Taxman 317/300 CTR 266 (Delhi)(HC). Property held for charitable purposes- Propagation of yoga falls under category of ‘Imparting of education’-Corpus donation to be excluded from total income-Higher membership

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

money – Addition of Donations as cash credit and denying benefit not justified – Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68.” CIT (E) v. Patanjali Yogpeeth (NYAS) (2018) 252 Taxman 317/300 CTR 266 (Delhi)(HC). Property held for charitable purposes- Propagation of yoga falls under category of ‘Imparting of education’-Corpus donation to be excluded from total income-Higher membership

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

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

unexplained amounts (fee) collected from students during the FY 2021-22 is Rs. 4,71,53,156/-. This amount was utilised for making payments to various RAs (Remuneration Account Holders) Rs.4.16 crore; Payment to Vice-Chancellor Dr. Ankur Kulkarni Rs.5,46,662/-; Payment to labour Rs.28,26,506/-; Cash Payment of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Thus, the receipts and expenses

M/S. HERO'S EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Charitable Trust vs. DGIT, (Del) in W.P.No.4725/2012 and C.M. No. 9795/2012 dated 24th I.T.A.No. 232/Ind/2015-A.Y.2010-11 M/S.HERO’S EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL. Page 17 of 29 September, 2015, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “We find that it is an admitted fact in the present case that the only activity of the petitioner is that

SHREE TEKCHANDJI MAHARAJ TRUST,UJJAIN vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Charitable PAN of Donee No. Bank A/c No.& activities in which Branch from which paid Donee is engaged 13) Party wise detail of foreign donation received, if any. Also furnish a copy of FCRA registration, form FC-3 & audit report in case donations are received during the year. 14) Details of any amount paid during the previous year

SHRI MAHESHWARI JANKAIYAN TRUST ,INDORE vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

unexplained. These details were not verified by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order. Therefore the said assessment order is an erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Hence a show cause notice was served upon the assessee why the assessment order be revised u/s. 263 of the Act to bring to tax the differential income

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

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