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

charitable or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation or thereafter.]” “61[62(5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall be the following, namely :— (i) investment in savings certificates as defined in clause (c) of section 263 of the Government Savings Certificates

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

charitable or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation or thereafter.]” “61[62(5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall be the following, namely :— (i) investment in savings certificates as defined in clause (c) of section 263 of the Government Savings Certificates

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

charitable or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation or thereafter.]” “61[62(5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall be the following, namely :— (i) investment in savings certificates as defined in clause (c) of section 263 of the Government Savings Certificates

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)

263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on-07.08.2015. 3. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the I T Act alongwith show-cause letter dated 10-12-2015 was issued which are as under: 3 . A.Y. 2010-11 "The scrutiny of the records reveals that you have claimed following expenditure which was in nature of capital expenditure Particulars

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

263 of the Act 2428/Ahd/2017 -Do- 2014-15 -Do- -Do- 143(3) of the Act 2. The issue involved being common in all the four appeals filed by the Revenue, all such appeals were heard together and disposed of by the common order. 3. We shall adopt the facts concerning AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 2425/Ahd/2017 for the purposes

KOSHAMBH CHARITABLE TRUST,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Charitable Trust vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Trust, registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, had filed a revised return declaring a gross income of ₹1,71,94,000/- and claimed deductions amounting to ₹1,60,21,263

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

263 of the Act and submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 8. With respect to the claim of deduction under section 80G amounting to Rs.5,00,00,000/-, the learned AR submitted that the donations were made to institutions duly approved under section 80G(5), and the claim was restricted

SHREE SANAND JAMALIYA PATIDAR PANCH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

263 considered registration u/s. 12AB of the Act to a Trust created before 01-04-2021 (i.e. old Trust) and held that Ld. CIT(E) has no power to invoke the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act while granting registration by observing as follows: “4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record

SEQUEL LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, 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)

charitable trusts which were duly registered under section 80G(5)(vi), assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80G in respect of such contribution - Held, yes - Whether since action of Assessing Officer in allowing claim under section 80G was a plausible view, impugned invocation of revision jurisdiction under section 263 was unjustified-Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour

TORRENT POWER GRID LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

charitable trusts which were duly registered under section 80G(5)(vi), assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80G in respect of such contribution - Held, yes - Whether since action of Assessing Officer in allowing claim under section 80G was a plausible view, impugned invocation of revision jurisdiction under section 263 was unjustified-Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour

VIMAL COAL PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Charitable Trust amounting\nto Rs.5000/-, both registered under section 80G(5) of the Act and engaged in\neducation-related activities. The assessee disallowed the entire CSR\nexpenditure under section 37(1) in the computation of business income and\nthereafter claimed 50% deduction under section 80G of the Act. The CIT(A),\nwhile acknowledging that the donations are not covered

AIA ENGIONEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

charitable trusts which were duly registered under section 80G(5)(vi), assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80G in respect of such contribution - Held, yes - Whether since action of Assessing Officer in allowing claim under section 80G was a plausible view, impugned invocation of revision jurisdiction under section 263 was unjustified-Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

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

charitable trusts which were duly registered under section 80G(5)(vi), assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80G in respect of such contribution - Held, yes - Whether since action of Assessing Officer in allowing claim under section 80G was a plausible view, impugned invocation of revision jurisdiction under section 263 was unjustified-Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour

SHRI SHAMLAJI AAROGYA SEVA TRUST,GODHRA vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), SURAT AT -VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.138/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust The Pr.Cit (Central) बनाम/ Kanelav Road Surat At Vadodara Dhahod Road V/S. Godhra – 389 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Surat [Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Pcit Held That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 16.11.2019, Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of

charitable purposes or for the benefit of specified persons disentitles the trust from claiming exemption. However, we restrict the scope of this appeal, without going into merits of eligibility of exemption u/s.11 of the Act, to Ld.PCIT’s invocation of section 263 of the Act. 7.4. The diversion of funds collected in the name of the trust and from debit

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

trust i.e. development and sale/ leasing of housing projects and other projects and general development, and whether or not these activities fell under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act i.e. objects of general public utility against the charges not being a charitable purpose. The para 2.1 to 2.2 of the ld.CIT’s order recording the above

GUJARAT ROHIT SAMAJ TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2161/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Gujarat Rohit Samaj Trust, D.C.I.T, 33, New Chandranagar Society, Vs. Cpc, B/H Supath-Ii, Bangalore. Union Bank Old Wadaj, Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Aaatg7340R

charitable trust and not a Association of Person (A.O.P) as treated by Dy CIT(CPC)/Banglore as well as Hon'ble CIT(A)-9/A'bad which is erroneous and unjustifiable. 3) That the Dy CIT (CPC), Banglore has passed the order u/s 143(1) of the I T Act determined total income of Rs 82,360/- which is below

GUJARAT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and in the penalty proceeding under Section 270A of the Act, respectively. ITA Nos.1179 & 1180/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18 (for both)) Gujarat Energy Development Agency vs. DCIT Page 2 of 13 2. As the two appeals pertain to the same A.Y., both the matters were heard together

GUJARAT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and in the penalty proceeding under Section 270A of the Act, respectively. ITA Nos.1179 & 1180/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18 (for both)) Gujarat Energy Development Agency vs. DCIT Page 2 of 13 2. As the two appeals pertain to the same A.Y., both the matters were heard together

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

Charitable Trust registered under section 12AA of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had issued notice pursuant to which the petitioner had given its reply explaining as to why it was entitled to the said deductions. The Assessing Officer after considering the explanation given by the petitioner had passed