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

section 2 has been amended to provide that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves or is carrying on any activity 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

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

section 2 has been amended to provide that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves or is carrying on any activity 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

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

section 2 has been amended to provide that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves or is carrying on any activity 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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Charitable Trust v. Union of India [20101 327ITR 73/188 Taxman 402 (Punj. & Ear.) - Commissioner however once again refused to grant registration observing that assessee was only engaged in leasing out building to third party, and no educational activities were provided by assessee - Whether in view of above said finding of Tribunal, Commissioner was not right in relooking at issue

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Charitable Trust v. Union of India [20101 327ITR 73/188 Taxman 402 (Punj. & Ear.) - Commissioner however once again refused to grant registration observing that assessee was only engaged in leasing out building to third party, and no educational activities were provided by assessee - Whether in view of above said finding of Tribunal, Commissioner was not right in relooking at issue

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

charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity 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, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity, unless

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

2) of the Act, is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore the order passed by the learned AO is required to be quashed. 4. The learned AR for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee vide letter dated 12-06-2022 goes to the root of the matter

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

DCIT (E) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

Trust or Commission (by whatever name called) will require similar consideration - i.e.. whether it is at cost with a nominal mark-up or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the mischief of "commercial activity". However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have

DCIT(E), CIRCLE-1 AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

Trust or Commission (by whatever name called) will require similar consideration - i.e.. whether it is at cost with a nominal mark-up or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the mischief of "commercial activity". However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have

DCIT(E) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT VEJALPURA AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

Trust or Commission (by whatever name called) will require similar consideration - i.e.. whether it is at cost with a nominal mark-up or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the mischief of "commercial activity". However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have