THE ACIT,(E) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. RAI UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2014-15 Rai University, Asst. Commissioner Of 398-400-401-403, Vs Income-Tax (E), Village : Saroda, Taluka : Dholka, Circle-1, Ahmedabad – 382260 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabar 4376 A Assessment Years : 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Rai University, Income-Tax (E), Vs Village : Saroda, Circle-1, Taluka : Dholka, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382260 Pan : Aabar 4376 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr & Shri Anshu Prakas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No.386/Ahd/2019 & Other Filed By The Revenue Being

Charitable Trust [(2015) 230 Taxman 66 (Guj)] (viii) Shri Kamdar Education Trust vs. ITO [(2016) 243 Taxman 76 (Guj)] Further, observation by the AO in the assessment order that such expenditure is not for the benefit of the Appellant, by implication indicates that the expenditure is not towards the objects of the-Appellant University. Therefore, in case of allowing benefit

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. BHOLARAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 11 and 12 of the Act. 16. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT (A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO. 17. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 18. The learned DR and the learned AR before us relied on the order of authorities

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. BHOLARAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 11 and 12 of the Act. 16. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT (A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO. 17. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 18. The learned DR and the learned AR before us relied on the order of authorities

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

Trust is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2014 declaring total income at NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.18,92,93,630/- under section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

Trust is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2014 declaring total income at NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.18,92,93,630/- under section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

Trust is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2014 declaring total income at NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.18,92,93,630/- under section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

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

Trust is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2014 declaring total income at NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.18,92,93,630/- under section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56

SHRI SAPTAMUKHI CHARITABLE TRUST,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : - Shri Saptamukhi Charitable Trust Vs. Cit (Exemption) Mukam Post Limbadia Jam, Ahmedabad. Gadhada Vis Dhasa Jn. Bhavnagar 364 230 Pan : Aabts 5941 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Assessee By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (Exemption) Mukam Post Limbadia Jam, Ahmedabad. Gadhada vis Dhasa Jn. Bhavnagar 364 230 PAN : AABTS 5941 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mohit Balani, AR Assessee by : Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR Revenue by सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

Trust) engaged in the activity of promoting the game of cricket. It filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 in question declaring total income in the negative at Rs.(-)1,57,21,610/- and thereafter filed the revised return on 31/03/2011 showing revised total income in negative at Rs.(-) 4,50,00,000/-. The ITA Nos.999, 1000, 1001/Ahd/2017

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

Trust) engaged in the activity of promoting the game of cricket. It filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 in question declaring total income in the negative at Rs.(-)1,57,21,610/- and thereafter filed the revised return on 31/03/2011 showing revised total income in negative at Rs.(-) 4,50,00,000/-. The ITA Nos.999, 1000, 1001/Ahd/2017

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

Trust) engaged in the activity of promoting the game of cricket. It filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 in question declaring total income in the negative at Rs.(-)1,57,21,610/- and thereafter filed the revised return on 31/03/2011 showing revised total income in negative at Rs.(-) 4,50,00,000/-. The ITA Nos.999, 1000, 1001/Ahd/2017