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

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, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT ENERGY RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (GERMI),, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The deletion of addition of Rs. 46,49,38,848/- made by the AO on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant on the asset

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2011-12, on the following grounds: ITA Nos.: 772 and 2656/Ahd/17, 3565/Ahd/16, 426, 2657 and 2658/Ahd/17 Assessment years: 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 Page 2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2011-12, on the following grounds: ITA Nos.: 772 and 2656/Ahd/17, 3565/Ahd/16, 426, 2657 and 2658/Ahd/17 Assessment years: 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 Page 2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2011-12, on the following grounds: ITA Nos.: 772 and 2656/Ahd/17, 3565/Ahd/16, 426, 2657 and 2658/Ahd/17 Assessment years: 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 Page 2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2011-12, on the following grounds: ITA Nos.: 772 and 2656/Ahd/17, 3565/Ahd/16, 426, 2657 and 2658/Ahd/17 Assessment years: 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 Page 2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2011-12, on the following grounds: ITA Nos.: 772 and 2656/Ahd/17, 3565/Ahd/16, 426, 2657 and 2658/Ahd/17 Assessment years: 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 Page 2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.UNITED WAYOF BARODA, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2011-12, on the following grounds: ITA Nos.: 772 and 2656/Ahd/17, 3565/Ahd/16, 426, 2657 and 2658/Ahd/17 Assessment years: 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 Page 2 of 15 “I. Whether on the facts

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2589/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Gujarat Cricket Dcit, बनाम/ Exemptions, Circle-1, Association Vs. Ahmedabad Iind Floor, Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Nr. Vijay Char Rasta, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaa Ag1 205 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

143(2) of the Act on 18.09.2015. ITA No. 2589/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 4. The assessee is a trust engaged on promoting the game of cricket in the state of Gujarat. The main object of assessee trust are to promote, control, supervise, regulate or encourage, promote and develop the games of cricket in all types of category. The assessee trust

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

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

GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD (GHB),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE D.C.I.T. (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Him) Of Denying Exemption To The Appellant’S Income U/S.11 & 12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed In The Appellant’S Return, On The Ground That The Appellant’S Case Attracted The First Proviso To Section 2(15) & In Turn, Sub-Section(8) Of Section 13 Of The Act.

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grievances raised by the appellant are as follows:- “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the order passed by the A.O. u/s.143

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION),CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. NANDESARI INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,, NANDESARI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section 143(2) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee-trust has claimed application of capital expenditure of Rs.4,71,49,186/- which included depreciation of Rs.3,19,05,911/-. The AO doubted a part of the capital expenditure of Rs.1,52,43,275/- to be 16 . A.Y. 2010-11 disallowable on the ground

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

143(3) of the Act 2. The issue involved being common in all the four appeals filed by the Revenue, all such appeals were heard together and disposed of by the common order. 3. We shall adopt the facts concerning AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 2425/Ahd/2017 for the purposes of deliberation on the issues involved for convenience purposes

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In Ground nos. 1 to 10, the assessee has raised the following grievances:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Ahmedabad ["the CIT(A)"] erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that : “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under : ITA nos1809-1810 &.2854/Ahd/2017 CO No.13/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2008-09 4 "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must