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

1) of the Act dated 25.06.2013 asking for specific details and documents was issued and served upon the assessee whereupon the details and documents were submitted on 19.08.2013 before the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has been filing the return of income over a period of time claiming exemption

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

1) of the Act dated 25.06.2013 asking for specific details and documents was issued and served upon the assessee whereupon the details and documents were submitted on 19.08.2013 before the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has been filing the return of income over a period of time claiming exemption

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

1) of the Act dated 25.06.2013 asking for specific details and documents was issued and served upon the assessee whereupon the details and documents were submitted on 19.08.2013 before the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has been filing the return of income over a period of time claiming exemption

M/S. VAIBHAV CONSTRUCTION,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

254 of the Act 20.10.2011 Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) - 4, Page 65 to 69 Baroda 22.08.2012 Order passed by the Hon. ITAT Page 49 to 51 against the Departmental appeal 07.03.2012 Rectification application by ITO Ward (1), Anand before CIT(A)-4, Baroda 09.05.2012 Order passed u/s. 1 54 of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Baroda

M/S. VAIBHAV CONSTRUCTION,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

254 of the Act 20.10.2011 Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) - 4, Page 65 to 69 Baroda 22.08.2012 Order passed by the Hon. ITAT Page 49 to 51 against the Departmental appeal 07.03.2012 Rectification application by ITO Ward (1), Anand before CIT(A)-4, Baroda 09.05.2012 Order passed u/s. 1 54 of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Baroda

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)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

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)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

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)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

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)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

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)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

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)

254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda Improvement Trust, Fazilka Improvement Trust Sangrur Improvement Trust Patiala Improvement Trust Jalandhar Improvement Trust Kapurthala Improvement Trust, Pathankot Improvement Trust Improvement Trust, Hansi, and the Special

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

254 of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has considered these three fold of submissions, and was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has reproduced clause of agreement under which the assessee was required to replace batteries. The ld.CIT(A) thereafter made reference to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

254 of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has considered these three fold of submissions, and was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has reproduced clause of agreement under which the assessee was required to replace batteries. The ld.CIT(A) thereafter made reference to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

KALPESH DHANJIBHAI MAKASANA,SURENDRANAGAR vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

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

Charitable Trust, Wadhwan through banking channel and also furnished other details as required by the assessing officer. On due verification of the details, the assessing officer accepted the Returned Income and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 20-09-2022. Perusal of the above assessment order, Ld. PCIT found that the assessee had shown income from salary

SHRI PRAVINKUMAR HIRALAL VORA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

1. That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by not quashing the order passed by the ld.AO wherein loss has been disallowed by him and therefore the ld.AO should be directed to accept the returned income and allow the loss, in full. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by treating

SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,SUDA BHAWAN, NANPURA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN (VEJALPUR)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Surat Urban Development The Cit(Exemption) Authority (Suda) Vs Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Suda Bhawan Nanpura, Surat. Pan : Aaals 0197 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

1) the prohibition applicable to such charities involved in carrying on activities "in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration " (2) "irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

254 and section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18. Since the common issues are involved in both the Assessee and Revenue appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

254 and section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18. Since the common issues are involved in both the Assessee and Revenue appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay

THE ACIT (EXEMPRION) CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

254 and section 143[3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18. Since the common issues are involved in both the Assessee and Revenue appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay