RADHAKRISHNA AKSHAR VIKAS NYAS ,VIDISHA vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradhakrishna Akshar Vikas Acit 3(1) Nyas Bhopal Vs. Braj Colony Sironj Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatr 8725M Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

disallowance and treated donations as the “anonymous donation” u/s 115BBC(3) for want of PAN and bank account statement. He has contended that section 115BBC(3) requires name and address for identity of the donors and assessee satisfied the mandate by producing names and addresses of the donors and therefore, addition made by the AO on the ground that Page

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

24(iia),4] Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that propagation of yoga by way of conducting yoga classes on a regular basis and in a systemized manner falls under category of ‘Imparting of education’. Corpus donation was to be excluded from total income. Higher amount from certain subscribers/donors in yoga camps

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

24(iia),4] Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that propagation of yoga by way of conducting yoga classes on a regular basis and in a systemized manner falls under category of ‘Imparting of education’. Corpus donation was to be excluded from total income. Higher amount from certain subscribers/donors in yoga camps

SHRI JAN SEWA SANKALP SANSTHAN,SEHORE vs. EXEMPTION WARD, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Jan Sewa Sankalp Assistant Director Of Sansthan, Income Tax, बनाम/ 16, Cpc, Opp. New Collector Office, Bangalore Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aagas4432 B Assessee By Shri Moksha Solanki, Ca & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this purpose being computed under this Act without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish a return

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

24,90,01,000/ - on account of claim of investment allowance u/ s 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in extending benefit of deduction

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

24,90,01,000/ - on account of claim of investment allowance u/ s 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in extending benefit of deduction

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

24,90,01,000/ - on account of claim of investment allowance u/ s 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in extending benefit of deduction

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

24,90,01,000/ - on account of claim of investment allowance u/ s 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in extending benefit of deduction

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

24,90,01,000/ - on account of claim of investment allowance u/ s 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in extending benefit of deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

24,90,01,000/ - on account of claim of investment allowance u/ s 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in extending benefit of deduction

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

24,90,01,000/ - on account of claim of investment allowance u/ s 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in extending benefit of deduction

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

24,90,01,000/ - on account of claim of investment allowance u/ s 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in extending benefit of deduction