ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana

300 ITR 214Supreme Court of India2008#832 most cited

What is ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana authority for?

Once an institution receives registration under Section 12AA, the Assessing Officer must compute its income as per Section 11, focusing only on the application of income and not re-examining the charitable nature of its activities. The Supreme Court also clarified the meaning and scope of 'general public utility' under Section 2(15).

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana · Section 12AA registration · Section 11 income computation · charitable trust exemption · general public utility · Section 2(15) · AO powers · post-registration assessment · application of income · charitable purpose

Also reported as

170 Taxmann 61214 SCC 169

Sections most often in play

Section 12ASection 11Section 12Section 12AASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 13Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 10(22)section 35acsection 11(4)section 10(20)section 12aa(3)section 115bbcsection 13(1)(d)section 13(3)section 35aanonymous donationsection 2(45)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

ITA 4305/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…mption u/s 11 of the Act. The registration of the Trust once done is a fait accompli and the AO cannot therefore make further probe into the objects of the Trust which has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 (SC). Similarly the registration of charitable Trust/Society u/s 12A is not an idle formality, it enables the Commissioner to come to the conclusion on the basis of documents, accounts etc filed for the purpose, whether the trust/society deserves registration which has been held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Ananda Marga Prach…

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT OF VILLAGE ECONOMY,GAYA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA

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

ITA 14/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 14/PAT/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Society for Advancement of ACIT(Exemption), Circle- Village Economy Vs. Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAJTS1557R Appearances: Assessee represented by : Dipak Kumar, CA. Department represented by : Md. Shadab Ahmed, CIR(DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 14-October-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 09-December-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is ag…

CENTRE FOR URBANISATION BUILDINGS AND ENVIRONMENT (CUBE), ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD 4,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3280/CHNY/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3280/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद! एवं माननीय एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद! के सम) BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI HON’BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.3280/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2024-25 Centre for Urbanisation Buildings The Income Tax Officer, and Environment (CUBE), Vs. Exemptions Ward-4, IIT Madras Research Park, Chennai. Module No.6C, 6th Floor, Kanagam Road, Tharamani, Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AADAC 1627M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Responden…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3795/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…public or impersonal nature. 47.The above said decision (2000) 246 ITR 188 – Hiralal Bhagwati Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) came up on April 18, 2000. Evidently, the Revenue has not gone on appeal as against this judgment. In the decision reported in (2008) 300 ITR 214(SC) in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Surat City Gymkhana, reference was made about this decision and the Apex Court pointed out that the Revenue did not challenge this case and it attained finality. 48. It is no doubt true that the decision reported in (2008) 300 ITR 214(SC) in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income T…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3794/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…public or impersonal nature. 47.The above said decision (2000) 246 ITR 188 – Hiralal Bhagwati Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) came up on April 18, 2000. Evidently, the Revenue has not gone on appeal as against this judgment. In the decision reported in (2008) 300 ITR 214(SC) in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Surat City Gymkhana, reference was made about this decision and the Apex Court pointed out that the Revenue did not challenge this case and it attained finality. 48. It is no doubt true that the decision reported in (2008) 300 ITR 214(SC) in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income T…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, MUMBAI

ITA 2328/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandcit (Exemptions)-1(1) Indian Institute For 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building Cumballa Human Settlements Hill, Dr. G D Deshmukh Marg, Vs. 2, Purnima Patel Compound, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026 L. J. Marg, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai-400 006 Pan: Aacci0088F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 8Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT (Exemptions)-1(1) Indian Institute for 6th floor, MTNL Building Cumballa Human Settlements Hill, Dr. G D Deshmukh Marg, Vs. 2, Purnima Patel Compound, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026 L. J. Marg, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai-400 006 PAN: AACCI0088F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Yogesh Thar a/w Chaitanya Joshi, Ld. AR Department Represented by : Shri Puskaraj Bhange Patil, Ld. DR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 24.01.2025 Date of Pron…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…e into its objects and activities so as to argue that it was not carrying out any charitable activity but rather was a business entity. The ld. CIT(A) had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 (SC) for this proposition. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) had held that once the registration had been granted under section 12AA, the income of the assessee had to be computed as per section 11 and not any other head of income. He, therefore, held that the order of the ld. AO to do otherwise was against judicial propriety and therefore it could not be sus…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…e into its objects and activities so as to argue that it was not carrying out any charitable activity but rather was a business entity. The ld. CIT(A) had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 (SC) for this proposition. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) had held that once the registration had been granted under section 12AA, the income of the assessee had to be computed as per section 11 and not any other head of income. He, therefore, held that the order of the ld. AO to do otherwise was against judicial propriety and therefore it could not be sus…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12A

…e into its objects and activities so as to argue that it was not carrying out any charitable activity but rather was a business entity. The ld. CIT(A) had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 (SC) for this proposition. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) had held that once the registration had been granted under section 12AA, the income of the assessee had to be computed as per section 11 and not any other head of income. He, therefore, held that the order of the ld. AO to do otherwise was against judicial propriety and therefore it could not be sus…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

ITA 534/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel &
Section 11Section 12A

…e into its objects and activities so as to argue that it was not carrying out any charitable activity but rather was a business entity. The ld. CIT(A) had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 (SC) for this proposition. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) had held that once the registration had been granted under section 12AA, the income of the assessee had to be computed as per section 11 and not any other head of income. He, therefore, held that the order of the ld. AO to do otherwise was against judicial propriety and therefore it could not be sus…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…e into its objects and activities so as to argue that it was not carrying out any charitable activity but rather was a business entity. The ld. CIT(A) had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 (SC) for this proposition. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) had held that once the registration had been granted under section 12AA, the income of the assessee had to be computed as per section 11 and not any other head of income. He, therefore, held that the order of the ld. AO to do otherwise was against judicial propriety and therefore it could not be sus…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…e into its objects and activities so as to argue that it was not carrying out any charitable activity but rather was a business entity. The ld. CIT(A) had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 (SC) for this proposition. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) had held that once the registration had been granted under section 12AA, the income of the assessee had to be computed as per section 11 and not any other head of income. He, therefore, held that the order of the ld. AO to do otherwise was against judicial propriety and therefore it could not be sus…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…the assessee. He also submitted that the ld. AO had indulged in a review of the objects of the appellant authority in violation of the law of the land as it had been declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that registration under section 12A was a fate accompli to hold the Assessing Officer back from further probe into the objects of the trust. The ld. AR also questioned the judgment of the ld. Assessing Officer in relying upon the deci…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…the assessee. He also submitted that the ld. AO had indulged in a review of the objects of the appellant authority in violation of the law of the land as it had been declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that registration under section 12A was a fate accompli to hold the Assessing Officer back from further probe into the objects of the trust. The ld. AR also questioned the judgment of the ld. Assessing Officer in relying upon the deci…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…the assessee. He also submitted that the ld. AO had indulged in a review of the objects of the appellant authority in violation of the law of the land as it had been declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 300 ITR 214 while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that registration under section 12A was a fate accompli to hold the Assessing Officer back from further probe into the objects of the trust. The ld. AR also questioned the judgment of the ld. Assessing Officer in relying upon the deci…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DR D Y PATIL VIDYAPEETH SOCIETY, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(15)

…the contentions of the AR of the assessee that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied in the absence of cancellation of registration under section 12A which is also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214). 102. We also find that the AO has brought nothing on record to show that the assessee-trust has not been carrying out activities are for charitable purposes as defined under section 2(15) of the Act. Further, there is also nothing on record to show that the assessee has violated the conditions laid down in section 13. As such, we are inclined t…

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 993/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी "स"धाथ" नौ"टयाल, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद"य के सम"। ] ] BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(s) by : No(s) ITA No(s) Assess- अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ment Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent Year(s) 991Ahd/2023 1. 2016-17 Parul Arogya Seva The DCIT Man…

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 992/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी "स"धाथ" नौ"टयाल, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद"य के सम"। ] ] BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(s) by : No(s) ITA No(s) Assess- अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ment Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent Year(s) 991Ahd/2023 1. 2016-17 Parul Arogya Seva The DCIT Man…

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 991/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी "स"धाथ" नौ"टयाल, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद"य के सम"। ] ] BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(s) by : No(s) ITA No(s) Assess- अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ment Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent Year(s) 991Ahd/2023 1. 2016-17 Parul Arogya Seva The DCIT Man…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1019/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी "स"धाथ" नौ"टयाल, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद"य के सम"। ] ] BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(s) by : No(s) ITA No(s) Assess- अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ment Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent Year(s) 991Ahd/2023 1. 2016-17 Parul Arogya Seva The DCIT Man…

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) — Cited in 125 Judgments | BharatTax