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

6 of 13 under Section 11 of the Act in respect of voluntary contribution in the form of “Grants from Government” and “Other donations”, which were applied for charitable purpose. It is found that the assessee had disclosed total voluntary contribution of Rs.1,17,18,89,144/- during the year which was applied towards charitable purpose and no taxable income

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

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 submission that aggregate receipts of charity fees or Give India Listing Income does not exceed 20% of the total receipts and accordingly proviso to section

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

6) Guard File\n\nTRUE COPY\nBy order\n\nAssistant Registrar\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nAhmedabad benches, Ahmedabad", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, a public charitable trust, received shares as corpus donation and later sold them for Rs.538.40 Crores. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this sale consideration as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

6 months\n\nDate\n15.11.2017\n17.11.2017\n12.12.2017\n20.12.2017\n&\n22.12.2017\n09.01.2018\n\nExemption claimed\nu/s.11(1A) of the I.T.\nAct, in the return of\nincome filed\n\n15. From the above chronology, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the corpus\ndonation of 80,00,000 shares of e-Infochips Limited to the assessee trust\nwas made with an objective

BHAVNATH EDUCATION TRUST,BAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1559/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Bhavnath Education Trust Income Tax Officer Bhanagar Highway, Dist. (Exemption) Vs. Bhavnagar, Ranghola- Ward, Bhavnagar 364230 / Aayakar Bhawan, Income Sanghavi & Company, Tax Office, Bhavanagar Prasham, 4Th Floor, Kasturba Road, Nr. Bilkha Plaza, Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2003J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M K Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2026 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

Charitable or religious purpose or set apart for specified purpose. The assessee Trust does not offered the surplus amount for taxation during the year under consideration. Hence the amount of Rs.40,03,428/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. ITA No.1559/Ahd/2025 [Bhavnath Education Trust vs. ITO(E)] A.Y. 2018-19 - 6 – Assessment order

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

SUNIL PIYUSH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS. -THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

6. That the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A and rejection of immunity under section 270AA are wholly unsustainable in law, since the reassessment order contains no finding invoking section 270A(9) or identifying circumstances of misreporting. The penalty notice is templated and conclusory, and cannot form the basis for denying immunity. 7. That the voluntary payments made

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6– of appeal. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the plea of bona fide belief regarding exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act on the ground that no documentary evidence or quantitative details, such as total receipts and extent of Government funding, were furnished either before the Assessing Officer or during appellate proceedings. The CIT(Appeals) further noted that section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6– of appeal. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the plea of bona fide belief regarding exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act on the ground that no documentary evidence or quantitative details, such as total receipts and extent of Government funding, were furnished either before the Assessing Officer or during appellate proceedings. The CIT(Appeals) further noted that section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6– of appeal. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the plea of bona fide belief regarding exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act on the ground that no documentary evidence or quantitative details, such as total receipts and extent of Government funding, were furnished either before the Assessing Officer or during appellate proceedings. The CIT(Appeals) further noted that section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6– of appeal. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the plea of bona fide belief regarding exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act on the ground that no documentary evidence or quantitative details, such as total receipts and extent of Government funding, were furnished either before the Assessing Officer or during appellate proceedings. The CIT(Appeals) further noted that section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6– of appeal. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the plea of bona fide belief regarding exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act on the ground that no documentary evidence or quantitative details, such as total receipts and extent of Government funding, were furnished either before the Assessing Officer or during appellate proceedings. The CIT(Appeals) further noted that section

MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) and thereby making disallowance of Rs. 53,36,814. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO and making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the facts on record in proper perspective. 6