SHRI GUPTNATH BAL SHIKSHAN SAMITI MACHALPUR,MACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

condoned the delay of filing of form 10B vide his order dated\n06.08.2024. Therefore, in our considered opinion, on this issue there\nshould not be any denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. However,\nwith regards to delay in filing of ROI, section 12A(1

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

In the result the \"Impugned order\" is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

1) The provisions\nof section 11 and section 12 shall not apply in relation to the\nincome of any trust or institution unless the following conditions\nare fulfilled, namely:-\n(b) where the total income of the trust or institution as computed\nunder this Act without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11\nand 12 exceeds the maximum amount

ITO(EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. AROGYA SEVA MANDAL, BURHANPUR MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is dismissed

condone such delays.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "11", "12", "11/12", "139(1)", "12AB", "12A", "119(2)(b)" ], "issues": "Whether a delay of 6 days in filing the audit report (Form 10B

DEVI ANUSUIYA VIDYA SANSTHAN,INDORE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

10B] was also not filed within the\nstatutory period.\n(v) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but the CIT(A)\nrejected assessee's appeal and did not grant any relief.\n(vi) Now, the assessee has come before us by way of next appeal.\n3.\nLd. AR for assessee firstly addressed the issue of delayed filing

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

condone delay, admit\nappeal and proceed with hearing.\n4. The background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee-individual is a differently-abled person. Originally, he\nwas a permanent employee of Central Govt. in the Department of\nTelecom for the period 01.12.1984 to 01.10.2000. Thereafter, w.e.f.\n01.10.2000, he was absorbed in BSNL, a public sector

ROSHNI HOMI DAJI BAHU UDDESHIYA SHIKSHA AVM SARVAJANIK NYAS,INDORE vs. CPC, BENGLURU, BENGLURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2023-24 Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Cpc, Bengaluru Uddeshiya Shiksha Avm Sarvajanik Nyas, बनाम/ 119, Kanlindi Kunj, Vs. Pipliyahana Square, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaetr9004R Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

condones the delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Keeping in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly denied exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act and rightly made addition of Rs. 1,03,26,610/- to the income of the appellant. Therefore, ground No. 1 to 6 are dismissed.” (viii

MALWA PATIDAR SAMAJ SHIKSHA SAMITI ,HATPIPLIYA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimalwa Patidar Samaj Shiksha Adit, Cpc Samiti Bangaluru Hatpiplya Tehsil Bagli Vs. Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabam4373Q Assessee By Mrs. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2024

condonation of delay in filing for filing the form 10BB u/s 119(2)(b) before the competent authority as specified by the CBDT in Circular no.15/2022 dated 19.07.2022. It is pertinent to note that the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) was claimed by the assesse only after the assesse was granted approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) vide order

INDORE CONTRACT BRIDGE ASSOCIATION YEASHWANT CLUB,INDORE vs. ITO ,WARD-EXAMPTION , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indore Contract Bridge Cpc, Association, Bangalore बनाम/ Yashwant Club, Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaai 1652 F Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

1) on 09.03.2019, it denied exemption u/s 11/12 for the sole reason that Form No. 10B was not filed along with return of income. Immediately after receiving such intimation, the assessee filed a rectification-application u/s 154 of the Act to the very same AO on 20.03.2019 and the assessee was awaiting a favourable disposal of rectification-application

NANCY ANN MILLER EDUCATIONAL TRUST,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-EXEMPTION, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Nancy Ann Miller Income-Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Ward-(Exemption), बनाम/ 64/67, Dhar Kothi, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaatn4010B Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

condoning the delay in filing audit report (Form No. 10B) but the assessee has not filed any petition before Commissioner of Income-tax, and (iii) The assessee has filed rectification-application u/s 154 and thereafter come in appeal before him instead of appeal against intimation u/s 143(1). The assessee ought to have challenged the intimation u/s 143(1

RAJRATAN FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

condoned\ntaking into account the facts of case and the assessee's solemn averments in\nthe light of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987\nAIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 having settled the law long back that all such\ntechnical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.\n3. Ld. AR for assessee next

ADARSH SHISHU VIHAR,INDORE vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU AND ITO EXEMPTION WARD, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2019-20 Adarsh Shishu Vihar, Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru & C/O Ca Rajesh Mehta, Ito (Exemption Ward), Rajesh Heeralal Mehta & Indore Company, Chartered Accountants, बनाम/ 203, Manas Bhawan Extn, Vs. 11, Rnt Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaaa2270K Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13 .06.2024

1) dated 05.02.2021. However, in such revised intimation, the AO denied assessee’s exemption u/s 11/12 for non-filing of audit report in Form No. 10B which is required for exemption u/s 11/12. After receiving revised-intimation, the assessee came to know of this mistake. Immediately, the assessee filed audit-report in Form No. 10B on 18.03.2021, copy of audit

SHRI VISHWAMITRA SHIKSHAN SAMITI,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Vishwamitra Income-Tax Officer, Shikshan Samiti, 5(1), 104, J. B. Complex, Indore. बनाम/ Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aajts1473J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024

condoning delay in the matter of filing audit report (Form No. 10B) but the assessee has not availed that remedy. This point is also rejected by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in Para 5.6 of their judgement in Indian Panel Board Manufacturer Vs. DCIT Tax Appeal No. 655 of 2022 dated 21.03.2023. For clarity, we may mention that the Circular

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDUS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

1)", "11", "13(3)", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the exemption under section 11 can be denied solely on the ground of delayed filing of the audit report in Form 10B when the delay was condoned

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-4(1), Indore Maral Overseas Ltd., बनाम/ Maral Sarovar, V& Po Vs. Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal

section 36, or, as required by or under any other law for the time being is force", The contribution of Rs. 1,45,87,125/- was not made by the assessee in approved gratuity found, it is being disallowed and an amount of Rs. 1,45,87,125/-is added back to the taxable income of the assessee.” Page

SHREE AMIZIRA PARSHWANATH SWETAMBAR JAIN TIRTH TRUST,AMIJHERA vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Shree Amizira Parshwanath Ito Swetamber Jain Tirth Trust Dhar बनाम/ Amzera Sardarpur Vs. Dhar (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) Pan: Aamts9264J Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

delay is a procedural lapse only and except such procedural lapse, there is no other reason to deny the benefit of section 11/12 to assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee should not be denied the legitimate exemption of section 11/12 when the assessee is genuinely doing charitable/religious activities for the welfare of public and satisfying all conditions prescribed

SAVITRI BAI JHAWAR SEWA NYAS,KHANDWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2020-21 Savitri Bai Jhawar Sewa Ito (Exemption ) Nyas, Indore Viklang Bal Sewa Ashram, बनाम/ Bt College Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats5055P Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

Section 12A(1)(b) of the IT. Act read with 1st Provisio to Rule 12(2) of the 1.T. Rules, the audit report has to be e-filed along with or before filing the return of income. But the assessee has e-filed the Audit Report in Form No 10B without copy of audited accounts ie. income and expenditure

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2019-20 Prof. Rajendra Singh Dcit, Cpc Gangaluru Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur बनाम/ Saraswati Shishu Mandir Vs. Keshav Nagar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeap0905C Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

delay of 1034 days because of Covid -19 pandemic and even after condoning the same, the JCIT(A) has not adjudicated the case on merits. The appeal has been dismissed without adjudicating the grounds of appeal contained in form 35 on merits of the case. 6. During the course of hearing before us the Ld. AR of the assessee

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

1) dated 17.06.2019 issued by CIT(Exemption), Bhopal. Ld. AR invited our attention to the copy of registration-order. Ld. AR then referred to the section 12A(2) which reads as under: “12A(2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation