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)

section 2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable

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)

section 2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-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)

section 2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable

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)

section 2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable

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

trust very much falls within the definition of "charitable purpose " provided under section 2(15) of the Act as it is also

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

trust does not fall under the last limb of the definition of Charitable purpose. Since the assessee is engaged in above mentioned charitable purpose, hence it is not right to apply first proviso to Section 2(15

SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA),SURAT vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee's appeal is thus allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

trust does not fall under the last limb of the definition of Charitable purpose. Since the assessee is engaged in above mentioned charitable purpose, hence it is not right to apply first proviso to Section 2(15

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. AHMEDBAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

15) of the Act, the said Trust assessee was denied the exempt ion under Section 11 of the Act. While holding that the activities of the assessee trust still can be said to be for charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. AHMEDBAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

15) of the Act, the said Trust assessee was denied the exempt ion under Section 11 of the Act. While holding that the activities of the assessee trust still can be said to be for charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2

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)

trust was considered to be for a charitable purpose. As a result of the addition of the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" at the end of the definition in section 2(15

AHMEDABAD TEXTILE INDUSTRY'S RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

Trust as business income, hence it is entitled for deduction in current year. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction of Rs.7,01,65,527 being revenue expenditure incurred during the year against income assessed as business income in Return of Income. 3. Further

AHMEDABAD TEXTILE INDUSTRY'S RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

Trust as business income, hence it is entitled for deduction in current year. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction of Rs.7,01,65,527 being revenue expenditure incurred during the year against income assessed as business income in Return of Income. 3. Further

AHMEDABAD TEXTILE INDUSTRY'S RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

Trust as business income, hence it is entitled for deduction in current year. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction of Rs.7,01,65,527 being revenue expenditure incurred during the year against income assessed as business income in Return of Income. 3. Further

AHMEDABAD TEXTILE INDUSTRY'S RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

Trust as business income, hence it is entitled for deduction in current year. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction of Rs.7,01,65,527 being revenue expenditure incurred during the year against income assessed as business income in Return of Income. 3. Further

AHMEDABAD TEXTILE INDUSTRY'S RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

Trust as business income, hence it is entitled for deduction in current year. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of Appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction of Rs.7,01,65,527 being revenue expenditure incurred during the year against income assessed as business income in Return of Income. 3. Further

GIVE FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the primary matter involved in all the Assessment

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

trust is registered u/s 12AA/12AB/80G and granted status of section 8 or section 25 companies under the Companies Act and this itself proves that appellant activities are charitable in nature and covered under main limbs of section 2(15

SHRI MAHESH P. GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

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: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate

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

charitable purpose’ under Section 2(15) of the Act, as it was engaged in the activities of advancing of any other object of general public utility in the field of education. The work of the Foundation was acknowledged in the UNICEF case study, referred earlier. The work done by the assessee trust