CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

12A and section 44AA of the Act.N [emphasis supplied] 3.Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable law, addition made u/s 68

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

12A and section 44AA of the Act.N [emphasis supplied] 3.Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable law, addition made u/s 68

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

section 12A – list of bonors submitted – Incomplete details of donors does not mean donations are unaccounted money – Addition of Donations as cash credit and denying benefit not justified – Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68

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

section 12A – list of bonors submitted – Incomplete details of donors does not mean donations are unaccounted money – Addition of Donations as cash credit and denying benefit not justified – Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 12A, 68

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

Appeal is dismissed

68,20,000/- has been made on account of\nviolation of section 13(3).\nPage 6 of 7\nDy. CIT (Exemption), Bhopal vs. Indus Education and Research Institute, Raipur\nITA No. 177/Ind/2024 - AY 2018-19\n6.\nTherefore, we do not find any infirmity or error in the order passed by\nCIT(A). Consequently, the same is hereby upheld

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

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) Page 2 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 3 of 32 of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

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

M/S. RISHIRAJ K.M.B. EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE CIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: Na

section 11 and 13 it is too be considered by the A.O at the stage of the assessment. The registration of the institution u/s 12A cannot be cancelled”. The Hon’ble Tribunal discussed many cases on this point from page 68

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

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide CIT Bhopal order dated 31.12.2003 w.e.f. 21.01.2003. As per return filed on 29.09.2011, excess of income over expenditure has been declared at Rs. 9,41,272/- which has been claimed as exempt u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Alternatively, it has also claimed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) during assessment

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

12A and hence the provisions of section 12 to 13 where applicable and no demand could be raised, if the income is applied for the objects of the trust. 2.1 All the additions maintained by the Ld. CIT(A) and the demand raised may please be cancelled. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the addition

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

68 to 87 of the ITA No. 278/Kol/2018 M.s. Credai Bengal, AY 2012-13 Paper Book in ITA No. 381/Kol/2016 passed on 30.09.2016. The relevant extracts of the decision is reproduced below: 8.1 Now in the light of above words, we have to examine as to whether the order of the ld. CIT is a valid order in the light

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

12A of 97. A copy of the Decree passed against the FMG by the Civil Court is submitted as Annexure C- 2.00. 8.00 That, against the Decree passed by the Civil Court, the assessee filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Indore. The Hon'ble High Court, vide its Order delivered

M/S. GYAN SAGAR SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Gyan Sagar Society, Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Mahesh Thahirani, Vs. Income Tax-Circle 1(1), L, Triveni Colony, Indore Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Akgpj5075N Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Morish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 17.7.2018 Date Of 26.7.2018 Pronouncement

12A of I.T. Act is an essential condition for getting exemption u/s 11 of I.T. Act, but getting registered alone is not sufficient, till appellant satisfies the Assessing Officer that all the activities carried out by it in a particular year are charitable in nature and not commercial. As held in the order for rejection of application

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

68,227/- on which no interest was received. Thus, the assessee has advanced the money for non business purposes. The assessee had advances money to the staff and others. The interest of Rs.3,60,465/- has been paid for the loan taken for purchase of car. No borrowed funds were advanced and the interest is paid on the borrowings

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

68,227/- on which no interest was received. Thus, the assessee has advanced the money for non business purposes. The assessee had advances money to the staff and others. The interest of Rs.3,60,465/- has been paid for the loan taken for purchase of car. No borrowed funds were advanced and the interest is paid on the borrowings

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

68,227/- on which no interest was received. Thus, the assessee has advanced the money for non business purposes. The assessee had advances money to the staff and others. The interest of Rs.3,60,465/- has been paid for the loan taken for purchase of car. No borrowed funds were advanced and the interest is paid on the borrowings

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

68,227/- on which no interest was received. Thus, the assessee has advanced the money for non business purposes. The assessee had advances money to the staff and others. The interest of Rs.3,60,465/- has been paid for the loan taken for purchase of car. No borrowed funds were advanced and the interest is paid on the borrowings

MAHAKAVI PANDIT BHURAMAL SAMAJIK SAHKAR NYAS,SAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

68 taxmann.com 407 (Hyd.) 3. Social Pedia Knowledge Foundation 31 taxmann.com 255 (Chennai) 4. Punjab Cricket Association 65 taxmann.com 239 (Chand.) 5. Kapurthala Improvement Trust 60 taxmann.com 301 (Asr.) 4. He submitted that under the facts of the present case, the Ld. CIT ought to have granted the registration. 5. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. supported the order