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

iv) investment in units of the Unit Trust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963); (v) investment in any security for money created and issued by the Central Government or a State Government; (vi) investment in debentures issued by, or on behalf of, any company or corporation both the principal whereof

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

iv) investment in units of the Unit Trust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963); (v) investment in any security for money created and issued by the Central Government or a State Government; (vi) investment in debentures issued by, or on behalf of, any company or corporation both the principal whereof

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

iv) investment in units of the Unit Trust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963); (v) investment in any security for money created and issued by the Central Government or a State Government; (vi) investment in debentures issued by, or on behalf of, any company or corporation both the principal whereof

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

iv) investment in units of the Unit Trust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963); (v) investment in any security for money created and issued by the Central Government or a State Government; (vi) investment in debentures issued by, or on behalf of, any company or corporation both the principal whereof

GUJARAT ROHIT SAMAJ TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2161/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Gujarat Rohit Samaj Trust, D.C.I.T, 33, New Chandranagar Society, Vs. Cpc, B/H Supath-Ii, Bangalore. Union Bank Old Wadaj, Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Aaatg7340R

iv) of section 160 of the Act. To this proposition, there is no dispute. It is also not under challenge that the trust on hand is a discretionary trust meaning thereby the beneficiaries of the trust are not known. In other words the trust being public trust was formed to carry out the charitable activities as evident from the trust

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

iv.) During the year. BCA has organized various programs which are summarized as under; a.) Various initiatives to spread cricket to grass root level has been achieved with, the games being taken to the remotest comers of the state, i.e. Nav-sari, Billimora. Mehsana etc. BCA ensured that boys/girls from these pans of the state are attending the regular nets

JAIN SANGH PARABDI KHATU TRUSTEE,ANKLAV vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 353-354/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Jain Sangh Parabdi Khayu Trustee, D.C.I.T., 1, In Bazar, Anklav, Vs. Cpc, Dist. Anand-388510, Bangalore.

1) of the Act which provides to charge the tax at the rate of maximum marginal rate. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR also contended that rate of tax as provided under section 164 of the Act as applicable to an individual should

JAIN SANGH PARABDI KHATU TRUSTEE,ANKLAV vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 353-354/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Jain Sangh Parabdi Khayu Trustee, D.C.I.T., 1, In Bazar, Anklav, Vs. Cpc, Dist. Anand-388510, Bangalore.

1) of the Act which provides to charge the tax at the rate of maximum marginal rate. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR also contended that rate of tax as provided under section 164 of the Act as applicable to an individual should

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEPTIONS, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5., BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5., BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

VASNA EDUCATION TRUST, VASNA,BORSAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Charitable Trust Act, 1951 therefore tax should be charged at normal rate of tax” 6. The necessary facts as emerged from the order of the authorities below are that the assessee in the present case is a trust and filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs. 7,94,036/- under the head “income from other sources