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

b) of the Act, exemption is not available if "any part of the income from the property held under a trust for private religious purposes which does not ensure for the benefit of the public;" While passing the assessment order, AO has not disputed the income shown by appellant and not proved that such income is used for private religious

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

Appeals are allowed

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

b) of the Act, exemption is not available if "any part of the income from the property held under a trust for private religious purposes which does not ensure for the benefit of the public;" While passing the assessment order, AO has not disputed the income shown by appellant and not proved that such income is used for private religious

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

b) of the Act, exemption is not available if "any part of the income from the property held under a trust for private religious purposes which does not ensure for the benefit of the public;" While passing the assessment order, AO has not disputed the income shown by appellant and not proved that such income is used for private religious

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

b) of the Act, exemption is not available if "any part of the income from the property held under a trust for private religious purposes which does not ensure for the benefit of the public;" While passing the assessment order, AO has not disputed the income shown by appellant and not proved that such income is used for private religious

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

b) of the Act, exemption is not available if "any part of the income from the property held under a trust for private religious purposes which does not ensure for the benefit of the public;" While passing the assessment order, AO has not disputed the income shown by appellant and not proved that such income is used for private religious

PARYAVARAN EDUTECH,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEM),, AHMEDABAD

b) carries on any activity in the nature of trade, business or commerce or provides any services in relation to the trade, commerce services or business and (c aggregate receipts there from exceed Rs. 10 lacs, it shall be considered that other objects is not a charitable purpose. If so, such a trust is not eligible for the exemption inasmuch

SHRI MANAV VIKAS FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJ, TL. VADHAVAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

charitable or religious trusts, etc. 17B. The report of audit of the accounts of a trust or institution which is required to be furnished under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, shall be in- (a) Form No. 108 where- (I) the total income of such trust or institution, without giving effect

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.

b) FY 2008-09 Rs. 1,88,26,808/- c) FY 2007-08 Rs. 38,12,635/- 4) The assessee-trust has provided an interest-free loan to the trustees violating the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above, the CIT held that the activities of the trust are not genuine and also

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.

b) FY 2008-09 Rs. 1,88,26,808/- c) FY 2007-08 Rs. 38,12,635/- 4) The assessee-trust has provided an interest-free loan to the trustees violating the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above, the CIT held that the activities of the trust are not genuine and also

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) of the Act. Tax Effect: NIL, being technical ground. 6.(a) Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in ignoring

LEUVA PATIDAR SAMAJ SEVA TRUST ODE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Na Leuva Patidar Samaj Seva Trust Ode Cit(Exemption) C/O. Divyan Shah & Co., Cas. Vs. Vejalpur 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex Ahmedabad. Nr.Regenta Central Atarim Hotel Off Cg Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabtl 8344 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

25. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 30.09.2023 seeking final registration under section 12AB(1)(ac)(iii). The CIT(E) issued show-cause notices dated 22.11.2023 and 14.03.2024. After examining the objects of the trust, the CIT(E) concluded that the trust was created for the benefit of a particular religious community or caste

ROTARY INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT 3054 CHARITABLE TRUST ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

B) of the Act. on the part of the appellant as such. (g) Application being incomplete (g) The application filed by the appellant or containing false or incorrect is in the prescribed profroma having information. been transmitted through ITBA portal and there is no such adverse finding noted by the Ld.CIT(E) as to the application being false or containing

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

b) if any land, building or other property of the trust or institution is, or continues to be, made available for the use of any person referred to in sub-section (3), for any period during the previous year without charging adequate rent or other compensation; (c) if any amount is paid by way of salary, allowance or otherwise during

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)

8). 6. Section 2(15) of the Act defines 'charitable purposes'. First proviso, thereto with effect from assessment year 2009-10 laid down that, if any trust etc. (a) is engaged in pursuing objects of general public utility ('other objects') and (b) carries on any activity in the nature of trade, business or commerce or provides any services in relation

SHREE VARDHMAN SAMAJ UTKARSH FUND,SABARKANTHA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

B” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year: NA Shree Vardhman Samaj The CIT(Exemption), Utkarsh Fund Ahmedabad D/8 Sako Bank Soc. Vs Gayatri Mandir Road, Mahavirnagar, Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha, (Respondent) Gujarat-383001 PAN: AAKTS8887R (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Adjournment Application filed Revenue Represented: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR Date of hearing

THE DY.DIT, (EXEMP.),, AHMEDABAD vs. MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNICATIONS, RESEARCH & EDUCATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

25 lacs, it shall be considered that other objects is not a charitable purpose. If so, such a trust is not eligible for the exemption in as much as the primary condition of being existing for charitable purpose is not satisfied. He held that the assessee was covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the act. He further

M/S. ARMEE INFOTECH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 (by Revenue) is dismissed, and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1778/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit,Cir.6(1), Vs. Armee Infotech Ahmedabad. 1002, Akik Building Opp: Rajpath Club, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. Pan : Aaifa 4964 D

8 similar contracts) the probability that an outflow will be required in settlement, is determined by considering the said obligations as a whole. In this connection, it may be noted that in the case of a manufacture and sale of one single item the provision for warranty could constitute a contingent liability not entitled to deduction under Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ARMEE INFOTECH,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No.1778/Ahd/2016 (by Revenue) is dismissed, and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1778/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit,Cir.6(1), Vs. Armee Infotech Ahmedabad. 1002, Akik Building Opp: Rajpath Club, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad 380 0054. Pan : Aaifa 4964 D

8 similar contracts) the probability that an outflow will be required in settlement, is determined by considering the said obligations as a whole. In this connection, it may be noted that in the case of a manufacture and sale of one single item the provision for warranty could constitute a contingent liability not entitled to deduction under Section