C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant case. 8.3. We find that there is no provision in section 35(1)(ii) of the Act to withdraw the recognition granted to the assessee therein. When there is no provision for withdrawal of recognition in the Act, the action of the revenue in withdrawing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

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

disallowance of exemption available u/s 11 of the Act is that the condition laid u/s 12A(1)(b) of the Act is not met. As per the said condition laid u/s 12A(1)(b) of the Act, the assessee is required to file the audit report under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA Nos. 4843 & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 - Mum Trib

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA Nos. 4843 & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 - Mum Trib

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA Nos. 4843 & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 - Mum Trib

BHAKTVATSAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ TRUST,WARDHA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

Section 12A of the 1.T. Act, 1961 and also under the Public Trust Act. 2. In assessment order, addition is made by denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and disallowing

SATPUDA FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

disallowing the claim under section 11(2) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. Satpuda Foundation ITA no.143/Nag./2021 4. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows:– “Decision on Ground No.2, 3 & 4 The sum and substance of the above grounds of appeal is directed

MANAV SEVA LOK KALYAN MAHASANGH,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE EXEMPTIOM, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roymanav Seva Lok Kalyan Vs Dcit/Acit, Circle Mahasangh, H.No. 32, Teka Exemption, Nagpur Naka, Asi Nagar, Nagpur. Pan : Aabtm 1643 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2026

disallowance of the benefit of income applied for charitable purposes apparently and allegedly by denying the benefit of exemption under section 11 and section 12 of the Act solely on account of belated filing in Form 10B ignoring the fact that the alleged delay was marginal and on account of circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant and which deserved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. MS GONDWANA ENGINEERS LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance u/s.36(i)(va). 2. Any other grounds and fact to be raised at the time of hearing with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT.” 2 M/s. Gondwana Engineers Ltd. ITA no.387/Nag./2024 3. The tax effect is only ` 1,91,350, as against limit of ` 60 lakh. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that there is a Revenue Audit Objection

HERD EDUCATIONAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2023-24

disallowed by the CPC vide order dated 18.11.2024 u/s 143(1) of the Act, which was subsequently affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner vide order dated 20.01.2025 u/s 154 of the Act. 2 M/s. Herd Educational & Medical Research Foundation 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowance/addition and/or aforesaid intimation/order by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

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

section 12A of the Act. The assessee trust received donation of Rs 1,23,29,000/- from 725 persons and the assessee submitted details of the doners, with their names and addresses. The A.O. issued 145 notices to the 20% of the donors to verify the veracity of the donations. Out of 145 donors, 102 donors confirmed the transactions

SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM ,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT ACIT CIR-EXEMP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

12A (column A19 of Part A of the return of income), all this confusion was created and led to a disallowance of the entire exemption claimed u/s 11A. Moreover, though the proceedings are being conducted for the final registration and as soon as the appellant gets that order it shall be submitted before your kindness, the appellant trust was still

M/S BHAKTVASTAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ NYAS,,WARDHA vs. DY. C.I.T. CENTRL CIR.-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am 1) Ita No.: 040/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2011-12 2) Ita No.: 036/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2007-08 3) Ita No.: 037/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2008-09 4) Ita No.: 151/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2009-10 5) Ita No.: 152/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2010-11 6) Ita No.: 038/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2009-10 (143 R.W.S. 263) 7) Ita No.: 039/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2010-11 (143 R.W.S. 263) Bhaktvastal Sadguru Yogiraj Vasantrao Vs. The Dcit Gopalrao Ghonge Maharaj Nyas Central Circle 2(2) Mukteshwar, Behind Rashtrabhasha Nagpur Gharpure Layout, Nagri Bank Colony Wardha Pan No.:Aabtb 2675 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M.

section 28 to 44) under the head “Income from Business” and ought to have disallowed the expenditure which was not spent wholly and exclusively for earning the income receipt. It has 17 ITA 40,36,37,151,152,38 & 39/NAG/2017 BHAKTVASTAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ NYAS VS DCIT,CC-1(1), NAGPUR been concluded that assessment for both

GAURISHANKAR SEWA SAMITI ,NANDURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

disallowing the Assessee's Appeal.\n2) Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the A.O.'s order without any basis.\n3) Learned A.O. erred in disallowing/not allowing the deduction amounting to\nRs.5,81,55,514/-.\n4) Learned CIT(A) erred in not properly considered Assessee's Written\nSubmission/Statement of Facts and he has not applying his mind and without\nany basis