VANDANIYA LAXMIBAI KELAR SMRUTI PRATISHTAN,CGANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-3, EXMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the provisional registration granted on 31/01/2024 was cancelled. 2. There is a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal in ITA no.628/Nag/2024. While going through the material available on record, we find that the assessee has not furnished a duly sworn affidavit. An application on plain paper

VANDANIYA LAXMIBAI KELAR SMRUTI PRATISHTHAN,CHANDAPUR vs. ITO WARD-3,EXMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the provisional registration granted on 31/01/2024 was cancelled. 2. There is a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal in ITA no.628/Nag/2024. While going through the material available on record, we find that the assessee has not furnished a duly sworn affidavit. An application on plain paper

SHRI PANCMURTI EDUCATION SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay in furnishing the auditor's report and accept the same at a belated stage. It has been clarified that the exemption available to the trust under section 11 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report. The word <169>shall<170> occurring in section 12A cannot, under the circumstances

CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIT (E), INCOME TAX OFFICE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SETH ROAD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

1) of section 12A of the Act, up to 30/09/2023. Thus, no further extension of time has been granted for application under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act vide the said Circular dated 24/05/2023. 8. From the above, it is evident that the present application filed in Form No.10AB under clause

YOUNG ENGINEERS EDUCATION SOCIETY,KURKHEDA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merits of the case. 7. We find that very minor dispute is involved in appeal of ITA No. 404/Nag/2025. We find that assessee, while filing application for registration of assessee-trust under section 12AB, due to inadvertence selected sub–clause (vi) of clause (ac) of section 12A(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR vs. DEENDAYAL SEVA PRATISHTHAN, YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

12A(1)(b) one month prior to the due date for furnishing return u/s 139(1). The appellant trust has filed the audit report on 09/03/2022 whereas the last date of filing ITR and audit report, as extended vide CBDT circular 01/2022 dated 11/01/2022 were 15/03/2022 and 15/02/2022 respectively for relevant assessment year. However, after pronouncement of the judgement

SHRI VYANKANATH MAHARAJ SHIKSHAN SANSTHA MURTIZAPUR,AKOLA vs. ITO WARD - 2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

12A(1)(ac) (vi) of I.T. Act 1961. 2. The order passed by CIT (Exemption) non-granting registration u/s 12AB is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 3. The learned CIT (Exemption) ought to have grant registration u/s 12AB of I.T. Act 1961 considering the facts and evidence on record. 2 Shri Vyankanath Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Murtizapur ITA no.398/Nag./2024

LOKSEWA SHIKSHAN BAHUUDDESHIYA MANDAL,BULDHANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Lokeswa Shikshan The Commissioner Of Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, V Income Tax-I, Nagpur. C/O. Dr.Arvindw.Kolte, S Janta College, Buldhana Road, Malkapur – 443101. Pan: Aaatl5306N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjay Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur Dated 11.11.2014 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Material Already On Record The Learned Cit Should Have Granted Registration U/S. 12A As Per Assessee’S Application Filed On Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A]

12A as per Assessee’s application filed on Lokeswa Shikshan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal [A] 08.05.2014. 2] Learned C.I.T. erred in rejecting the Assessee’s application for registration summarily merely on the ground of non-appearance on 10.11.2014 when all the relevant material for grant of registration was already on record. 3] Order passed by learned C.I.T. is in violation of principles

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 EXEMP, NAGPUR vs. PRERNA SAMAJIK SANSKRITIK BAHUDDESHIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, ARMORI, GADCHIROLI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

12A(1)(ba) of the Act for claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act.” 2. The ld. CIT(A) has granted relief by holding as follows: “Under these grounds, the appellant has challenged the denial of exemption of Rs.4,95,83,899/- claimed under section 11 of the Act. I have considered the submission made by the assessee and also

VAIDIK ANUSANDHAN KENDRA,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms as indicated above

condoned the delay, citing the peculiar facts and miniscule delay. However, noting the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence for their contentions and the potential violation of natural justice by the CIT(E), the Tribunal decided to remand the appeals back to the CIT(E).", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "12A(1

SAKSHAM KUSHTHANTEYA SWABHIMANI SANSTHA,NAGBHID vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 2 Saksham Kushthanteya Swabhimani Sanstha Nagbhid ITA no.154/Nag./2025 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 552 days in filing of the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed following submissions:– “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION

BHARTIYA SADVICHAR PRASARAK MANDAL,CHANDRAPUR vs. CIT - EXEMPTIONS PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condoning the delay, we proceed for adjudication on merits. 5. It is deemed fit to extract below the impugned order dated 30/09/2022, for rejection. “Annexure (mentioned in row-9 above) The assessee has filed application No.CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE/2022- 23/12AA/11447 in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1

M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay of 702 days in filing of the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The sole dispute involved in this appeal relates to addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) amounting to ` 2,50,00,000, allegedly held to have been received by the assessee in cash. 6. The assessee is engaged

VASUNDHARA BAHUUDESHIYA SAMAJIKK SANSTHA,KHAMGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Vs. C.I.T.(Exemptions) Samajik Sanstha, Pune At Nagpur. 1, Vasundhara, Madhav Nagar, Khamgaon-444303. Pan No.: Aaabv 0305 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. C.I.T.(Exemptions), Pune At Nagpur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assesee. “1. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit By Taking A Recourse To Section 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law, When The A.O. Has Made Sufficient Enquiries During The Assessment Procedure. 2. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Without Considering Appellant’S Submission Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 3. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit Even Though If It Is Termed As Erroneous But It Is Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. As The Donation Has Been Duly Disclosed By The Appellant In Their

1. Whether the revision order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT by taking a recourse to Section 263 is illegal and bad in law, when the A.O. has made sufficient enquiries during the assessment procedure. 2. Whether the revision order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT, without considering appellant’s submission is illegal and bad in law. 3. Whether the revision order

DEESHA MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

12A/ section 80G/ and section 35 of the Act with a view to avoid genuine hardships to taxpayers.” Deesha Medical And Education Foundation ITA no.284/Nag./2024 3. In this case, the assessee filed The assessee has filed application No.CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE/2023- 24/12AA/12727 in Form no.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section

UTKARSHA SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. CIT EXMPTION, PUNE

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

section 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of provision registration on Page-3 To 7 of the Paper Book. The assessee has submitted application for permanent registration in Form 10AB on 30/09/2023. The CIT(E) has issued notice U/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) dated 24/11/2023. Copy of notice on Page

UTKARSHA SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

section 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of provision registration on Page-3 To 7 of the Paper Book. The assessee has submitted application for permanent registration in Form 10AB on 30/09/2023. The CIT(E) has issued notice U/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) dated 24/11/2023. Copy of notice on Page

YUVA FOUNDATION,NAGPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay of 63 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal is hereby condoned. We now proceed to dispose off the appeals on merit. 4. The issue involved in both the appeals relate to rejection of final approval under section 12A(1

YUVA FOUNDATION,NAGPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay of 63 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal is hereby condoned. We now proceed to dispose off the appeals on merit. 4. The issue involved in both the appeals relate to rejection of final approval under section 12A(1