DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

TDS provisions, expenses incurred for earning exempt income, ICDS adjustments, and refund claims. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 29.06.2021 and 15.12.2021 respectively, and the assessee furnished its responses thereunder. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had earned exempt income amounting to Rs.8,28,12,464/- during

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

TDS was deducted on certain payments, the assessee can’t be said to be a profit-making organization, when the pre-activity was entirely charitable in nature. The facts being identical in this year as well, we do not find any reason to deviate from the stand as taken above by the Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee

HESTER BIOSCIENCE LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act amounting to ₹1,75,61,505/- and this included the interest amount of Rs. 98,791/-, which is in question. Regarding the deduction under section 80G of the Act, the assessee submitted that that the restriction under section Hester Biosciences Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst. Year –2020-21 - 3– 115BAA(2

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) [2023] 153 taxmann.com 496 (Bombay)/[2023] 294 Taxman 766 (Bombay)/[2023] 457 ITR 18 (Bombay)[18-07-2023], the Bombay High ITA Nos. 303&304/Ahd/2025 Shri Balashah Bava Sanstha Sarvajanik Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst. Years –N.A. - 6– Court held that when there is no limitation provided under sub-section (2) of section 279 for submission or consideration

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) [2023] 153 taxmann.com 496 (Bombay)/[2023] 294 Taxman 766 (Bombay)/[2023] 457 ITR 18 (Bombay)[18-07-2023], the Bombay High ITA Nos. 303&304/Ahd/2025 Shri Balashah Bava Sanstha Sarvajanik Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst. Years –N.A. - 6– Court held that when there is no limitation provided under sub-section (2) of section 279 for submission or consideration

GUJARAT STATE PLASTIC MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DDIT(E),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

TDS Certificate issued by deducting person shows the nature of payment as contractor, rent and fees and in support of its contention. Ld. A.R. cited an order of ITAT Kolkata Bench in ITA No. 1491/Kol/2012 & ITA No. 1284/Kol/2012 for Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009- 10 titled as Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. ITO wherein in similar circumstances ITAT Kolkata Bench

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

80G and 80GGB of the Act for the donations made by the undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. The deduction under section 80-IA of the Act is allowed to the assessee with respect to the business referred therein is carried on by the assessee. That particular business is known as the undertaking which