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

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 for A.Y. 2011-12 with the DDIT(E)- Circle – 17(2), Bangalore declaring total income as Nil which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.07.2012 resulting into a refund

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

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 for A.Y. 2011-12 with the DDIT(E)- Circle – 17(2), Bangalore declaring total income as Nil which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.07.2012 resulting into a refund

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

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 for A.Y. 2011-12 with the DDIT(E)- Circle – 17(2), Bangalore declaring total income as Nil which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.07.2012 resulting into a refund

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

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 for A.Y. 2011-12 with the DDIT(E)- Circle – 17(2), Bangalore declaring total income as Nil which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.07.2012 resulting into a refund

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

143(3) of the Act on 06.06.2022 at a total income of Rs.6,15,26,94,300/-. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.538.40 Crores under Section 68 of the Act in respect of sale consideration of shares of e-infochips Limited. Further, the Assessing Officer had also denied exemption under Section

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

Appeals are allowed

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

1. ACIT Vs. B.N. Corporation [2001] 116 Taxman 579 (Gujarat). 2. M.R. Corporation Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3401/Ahd/2010). 3. M/s Nepute Reality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2918/Ahd/2011). ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 19 4. CIT Vs. Anandkumar Deepak Kumar

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

1. ACIT Vs. B.N. Corporation [2001] 116 Taxman 579 (Gujarat). 2. M.R. Corporation Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3401/Ahd/2010). 3. M/s Nepute Reality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2918/Ahd/2011). ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 19 4. CIT Vs. Anandkumar Deepak Kumar

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

1. ACIT Vs. B.N. Corporation [2001] 116 Taxman 579 (Gujarat). 2. M.R. Corporation Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3401/Ahd/2010). 3. M/s Nepute Reality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2918/Ahd/2011). ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 19 4. CIT Vs. Anandkumar Deepak Kumar

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

1. ACIT Vs. B.N. Corporation [2001] 116 Taxman 579 (Gujarat). 2. M.R. Corporation Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3401/Ahd/2010). 3. M/s Nepute Reality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2918/Ahd/2011). ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 19 4. CIT Vs. Anandkumar Deepak Kumar

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

1. ACIT Vs. B.N. Corporation [2001] 116 Taxman 579 (Gujarat). 2. M.R. Corporation Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3401/Ahd/2010). 3. M/s Nepute Reality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2918/Ahd/2011). ITA No 991,992,993,1018 & 1019/Ahd/2023. Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust & Parul University (ITA 993/Ahd/2023) Asst. Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 19 4. CIT Vs. Anandkumar Deepak Kumar

THE JT. CIT(EXEMPTION)(OSD), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. DIVYA JYOTI TRUST, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Jt.Cit (Exemptions)(Osd) Divya Jyoti Trust Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Tejas Eye Hospital Suthar Faliyaat & Post – Mandvi Surat 394 610. Pan : Aabtd 3401 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 7.6.2019 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-9/10321/Dcit(E), Cir.2-/17-18Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

charitable trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 as well as registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) Assessee-trust was engaged for the services of poor people in the field of eye-care needs. The founder of the trust himself is Ophthalmologist. The Trust has begun with an eye-hospital

CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

charitable purpose u/s 2(15) of the Act. 3) As per the judgment Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana high court in case of Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth reported in 326 ITR 25 where in it was held that Once the all requisite requirement of section 11 to avail the benefit of the exemption fulfilled by the trust, the trust entitled

ITO(EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD vs. CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

charitable purpose u/s 2(15) of the Act. 3) As per the judgment Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana high court in case of Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth reported in 326 ITR 25 where in it was held that Once the all requisite requirement of section 11 to avail the benefit of the exemption fulfilled by the trust, the trust entitled

SHRI SOUDHARMA BRIHAD TAPOGACHCHIYA TRISTUTIK JAIN SANGHA SAMARPANAM,AHMEDABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is devoid of\nmerits and the same is hereby dismissed

1) of section 124A, as the case\nmay be, and subsequently-\n(a) the Principal Commissioner of Commissioner has noticed\noccurrence of one or more specified violations during any previous\nyear, or\n(b) the Principal Commissioner of Commissioner has received a\nreference from the Assessing Officer under the second proviso to\nsub-section (3) of section 143

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

charitable trust, did not upload audit report in Form 10B along with its return of income. Accordingly, Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) processed return under section 143(1

KOSHAMBH CHARITABLE TRUST,VADODARA vs. CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, VADODARA

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 143 (1) of the Act was issued. 8. In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. In the case of CIT(E) vs. Anjana Foundation 168 taxmann.com 462 (Gujarat), the Hon’ble High Court held that charitable trust

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE KHODAL DHAM TRUST, KAGWAD, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.904/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T.(Exemptions) Shree Khodal Dham Trust, Circle-2, Vs. Kagwad, Ahmedabad. Alka Society, 4Th Floor, Shri Sardar Patel Bhavan, Near Water Tank, Rajkot-360004. Pan: Aajts1017J

charitable trust as not eligible for deduction under section 11 as it was in contravention to investment modes and forms as defined under section 11(5) - Further, Commissioner (Appeals) traversed a step further by denying registration under section 10(23C) by invoking provisions of section 13(l)(d) on ground that assesses had violated condition of investment specified under section

SHIKSHA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

charitable institution registered under section 12AA, claimed exemption under section 11. On filing original return of income assessee was communicated by Assessing Officer that assessee had not filed Audit Report Immediately thereafter, assessee filed Audit Report in Form 108 by uploading same in electronic mode Central Processing Centre denied exemption under section 11 for want of submission of Form