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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately.” 5.1 Thus, it is clear that the AO has disallowed the claim primarily on two grounds, that this expenditure is incurred for organizing the Shivir/celebration and not proportionate to the normal expenditure incurred by the assessee on providing education to the students. The second objection

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

12A of 1961 Act vide registration No. TR/25225 and the assessee is also registered with Charity Commissioner, Mumbai vide registration No. E- 10395, Mumbai. The assessee trust has claimed that it is engaged in charitable activities in the field of education and medical relief and is thus entitled for exemption u/s 11 of 1961 Act. During the course of assessment

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

12A of 1961 Act vide registration No. TR/25225 and the assessee is also registered with Charity Commissioner, Mumbai vide registration No. E- 10395, Mumbai. The assessee trust has claimed that it is engaged in charitable activities in the field of education and medical relief and is thus entitled for exemption u/s 11 of 1961 Act. During the course of assessment

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

2), if any, in last 8 years and the details of\nutilization as below:-\nA.Y.\nAmount\nAccumulated\nAmount\nUtilized\nPurpose of\nAmount\nPurpose of\nUtilization\nBalance\nAmount\nUnutilized\nof Amount\nend of\nYr.\ntill\nAssessment\nAlso furnish copies of Application in Form 10 & Resolution of Trustees in this\nregard.\n10)\n11)\nDetails of option exercised in the earlier year u/s.11

MUKESH SHAH ,NAGPUR vs. PCIT-2, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimukesh Shah Pr. Cit 202, Silver Palm Apartment Indore Rpds Road, Laxmi Nagar Vs. Nagpur

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE EVEREST ENGLISH EDUCATION EXTENSION SOCIETY ,TILAK NAGAR, DEWAS (M.P.) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, UJJAIN, EXEMPTION WARD, UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanithe Everest English Education Ito Extension Society Ujjain 83 Bhagat Singh Marg Meera Vs. Bawdi, Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabtt4223B Assessee By Shri Manoj Madnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2024

section 164(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act being Initiated separately on this issue.” 5. The assesse has explained the reasons not non-submitting of relevant details and explanation as there was a change of the office bearers/management of the society and therefore, the assessee could not properly participated

M/S VAJDI EDUCATION SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE ITO-EXEMPTION, INDORE

In the result, Both the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the penalty on the ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. 1.1 Complete details were filed before the Ld. AO & the Ld. CIT(A). It was proved before them that the additions made