VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 17 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) General test under Section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 17 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) General test under Section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 17 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) General test under Section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 17 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) General test under Section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page No 17 Vadodara Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (E) General test under Section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself

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

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 26.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 06.06.2022 at a total income of Rs.6

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

2 of 24\ndated 31.03.2025, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the\nproceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act').\n\n2.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return\nof income

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

2 of 24\n\ndated 31.03.2025, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the\nproceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act').\n\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return\nof income

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of 'education ' or 'medical relief'. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

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 294 ITR 497 (Delhi). 5.5. The Ld.AR also stated that

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

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 294 ITR 497 (Delhi). 5.5. The Ld.AR also stated that

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

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 294 ITR 497 (Delhi). 5.5. The Ld.AR also stated that

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

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 294 ITR 497 (Delhi). 5.5. The Ld.AR also stated that

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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 294 ITR 497 (Delhi). 5.5. The Ld.AR also stated that

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(l)(a) of the I.T, Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad has also erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by not appreciating that denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Koshambh Charitable Trust

DCIT CIRCLE -1 (EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NARODA ENVIRO PROJCT LIMITED , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

143[3] of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] relating to the Asst. Year 2016-17. 2. The solitary Ground raised by the Revenue reads as under: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A), has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,26,05,920/- relying upon the order

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

2) Construction of Derasar-upashraya:\nThis institution will construct Derasar, Upashraya, Pathashala,\nGnanmandir, Pushadashala and canteen. So, the Shravakas who come\nfor darshan and worship will get support and adopt the shrines and\nupashrayas and repair them.\n(3) Dev Dravya:\nCreating fund of dev Dravya as per guidance of Acharya Bhagwant and\nas per principles of Jainism. Creating ornaments

SHRI SOJI JAIN SHWETA DERASAR MURTI PUNJAK SANGH,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD(EXEMPTION), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

trust is not registered under section 12AA. 2. The Learned CIT (A) had dismissed partial appeal filed by appellant against the AO order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by not accepting corpus donation as capital receipt because it is found from the assessment order that there is no finding of AO on utilization of said fund

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) of the Act denying benefit of exemption under section 11 to assessee. During pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), assessee electronically uploaded Form 10B. The Commissioner (Appeals) admitted report in Form 10B filed