SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares and, accordingly. exemption under section 10(38) claimed by assessee was disallowed assessee had duly produced all primary documents in relation to LTCG earned by it before Assessing Officer and these documents reflected occurrence of transactions in normal Details of information received by Principle Rakesh Bhikhabhai(HUF) vs. PCIT Asst.Year

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

5– duty to refrain from levying tax on the said capital gains and he could not, in such cases, refuse to grant relief under section 143 to the assessee on the technical plea that the assessee had not filed a revised return. It is so since the paramount duty of the Assessing Officer is to complete the assessments in accordance

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

5– duty to refrain from levying tax on the said capital gains and he could not, in such cases, refuse to grant relief under section 143 to the assessee on the technical plea that the assessee had not filed a revised return. It is so since the paramount duty of the Assessing Officer is to complete the assessments in accordance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

5. The first ground pertains to disallowance of Rs.44,94,000/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. Shri Alpesh Parmar, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee had income from investments which did not form part of total income but no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

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

80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case of ITA No. 839/Ahd/2019 for the A.Y. 2018-19 has denied the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act to Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

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

Appeals are allowed

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

80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case of ITA No. 839/Ahd/2019 for the A.Y. 2018-19 has denied the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act to Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

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

Appeals are allowed

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

80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case of ITA No. 839/Ahd/2019 for the A.Y. 2018-19 has denied the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act to Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

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

Appeals are allowed

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

80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case of ITA No. 839/Ahd/2019 for the A.Y. 2018-19 has denied the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act to Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

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

Appeals are allowed

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

80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case of ITA No. 839/Ahd/2019 for the A.Y. 2018-19 has denied the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act to Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 others A.Y.2013-14 43 account of benchmarking of loan to AE. Thus, the ground of the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Capital Infusion. 55. The TPO found that the assessee during the year has made payment of share application money to the following AEs: S. Name of AE Amount in Rs. Date of Date of share

SHRI MANAV VIKAS FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJ, TL. VADHAVAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

80G of the Act, being engaged in the field of education and managing two schools for students from primary to higher secondary level. For the impugned assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2020-21, the assessee e-filed return of income on 13.02.2021, which was within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act, declaring Nil income after claiming its entire

MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

capital gains under section 10(38) of Rs. 20,35,547/-, both of which were claimed as exempt. The assessee, on its own, disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards expenditure relatable to exempt income. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that indirect administrative expenditure is inevitably incurred in relation to such exempt income and that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER & CHEMICAL LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

80G of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now.” ITA No. 538/Ahd/2020 – Department’s appeal 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. (1) (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,78,76,443/- under section

GUJARAT STATE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)1(), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

80G of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now.” ITA No. 538/Ahd/2020 – Department’s appeal 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. (1) (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,78,76,443/- under section