M/S. M.P. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXCEMPTION , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

4) CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, Board of Secondary Education, claimed exemption under Section 11/12 of the Income Tax Act. The AO disallowed a claim of Rs.2,16,50,650/- as an application

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

section 80P(4) prohibits deduction in such cases. 10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides. Admittedly, there is no dispute on facts that (i) the assessee is a “co-operative society” but not a “co- operative bank” and (ii) the assessee has earned interest from “co-operative banks”. Now, the controversy before us is purely legal i.e. whether

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

4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee did not claim exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act in the return of income therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be entertained by the AO in absence of revised return of income for making a fresh claim. Ld. DR has further submitted that even

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

4 and 62433/20245 are\nallowed.\n\n21. To offset, to some extent, the hardship of the appellant in pursuing his\nlegal remedies, we deem it appropriate that costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty\nThousand) be paid by the respondent to the appellant, subject to which the\ndelay in filing the Second Appeal shall be treated as condoned. Let such\npayment

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

11. Finally, Ld. AR corroborated the impact/implications of various clauses of contracts/agreements entered into by the assessee(as discussed in earlier paragraph) in the light of above decisions and argued that the assessee satisfies all requirements as expounded by Hon’ble Courts for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Hence, the activity of assessee cannot be said

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

11. Finally, Ld. AR corroborated the impact/implications of various clauses of contracts/agreements entered into by the assessee(as discussed in earlier paragraph) in the light of above decisions and argued that the assessee satisfies all requirements as expounded by Hon’ble Courts for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Hence, the activity of assessee cannot be said

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

11. Finally, Ld. AR corroborated the impact/implications of various clauses of contracts/agreements entered into by the assessee(as discussed in earlier paragraph) in the light of above decisions and argued that the assessee satisfies all requirements as expounded by Hon’ble Courts for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Hence, the activity of assessee cannot be said

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

11. Finally, Ld. AR corroborated the impact/implications of various clauses of contracts/agreements entered into by the assessee(as discussed in earlier paragraph) in the light of above decisions and argued that the assessee satisfies all requirements as expounded by Hon’ble Courts for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Hence, the activity of assessee cannot be said

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

11. Finally, Ld. AR corroborated the impact/implications of various clauses of contracts/agreements entered into by the assessee(as discussed in earlier paragraph) in the light of above decisions and argued that the assessee satisfies all requirements as expounded by Hon’ble Courts for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Hence, the activity of assessee cannot be said

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

disallowed and treated as unexplained investment made in aforesaid immovable Page 5 of 18 Ritika Jain ITA No. 632/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2015-16 property and being added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act for A.Y. 2015-16. 2.15 The d. A.O thus made addition of Rs. 10,85,000/- (supra). 2.16 That since

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

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

section 263 on 28.12.2017 thereby the expenditure of Rs.98,45,124/- on account of Vaman Drishti Shivir has been disallowed as application of income for charitable purpose. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assesse filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the assesse

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

disallowances are acceptable to assessee.\n(iii) The AO has invoked taxing section 115BBE for calculation of tax liability which is not applicable even if there remains any total income after re-computation.\n11. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue made following submissions:\n(i) The provision of section 139(4C) obligating the assessee to file return is a mandatory

M/S. M. P. COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (EXEMPYION) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

4 of 11 Madhya Pradesh Council for Vocational Education & Training, Bhopal ITA Nos. 176 & 177/Ind/2022 – A.Ys.2016-17 & 2017-18 adjudication by us is whether or not the assessee shall be eligible to get benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 for preceding AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 under consideration in present appeals? 9. The assessee claims that it is entitled

M/S. M. P. COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING BHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (EXEMPYION) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

4 of 11 Madhya Pradesh Council for Vocational Education & Training, Bhopal ITA Nos. 176 & 177/Ind/2022 – A.Ys.2016-17 & 2017-18 adjudication by us is whether or not the assessee shall be eligible to get benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 for preceding AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 under consideration in present appeals? 9. The assessee claims that it is entitled