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

271(1)(c). 10. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 11. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before CIT(Appeals), which are to the effect that the assessee is a Govt. funded Trust wherein over 90% of the finance

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

271(1)(c). 10. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 11. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before CIT(Appeals), which are to the effect that the assessee is a Govt. funded Trust wherein over 90% of the finance

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

271(1)(c). 10. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 11. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before CIT(Appeals), which are to the effect that the assessee is a Govt. funded Trust wherein over 90% of the finance

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

271(1)(c). 10. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 11. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before CIT(Appeals), which are to the effect that the assessee is a Govt. funded Trust wherein over 90% of the finance

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Trust is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2014 declaring total income at NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.18,92,93,630/- under section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Trust is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2014 declaring total income at NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.18,92,93,630/- under section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Trust is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2014 declaring total income at NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.18,92,93,630/- under section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Trust is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 28.09.2014 declaring total income at NIL after claiming deduction of Rs.18,92,93,630/- under section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56

DUDHSAGAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT(E) CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

charitable service and was being compensated for its services. Dudhsagar Research and Development Association vs. DCIT(E) Asst.Year –2014-15 - 3– 3.4.2 The grounds are general and do not really add anything new to the arguments already taken during the penalty proceedings. Paras 4.1 to 4.5 bring out clearly the discrepancies in the arguments taken by the appellant and show

SHREE GUNATIT JYOT MAHILA TRUST,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD - EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 326/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Shree Gunatit Jyot Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Mahila Trust Ward, Exemption Vs. Post Box No.23, Pappaji Vadodara Marg, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Anand, Gujarat, 388120 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaats8722P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 12.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Registered Under The Bombay Public Trust Act And

charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and ITA No. 326/Ahd/2024 [Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust vs. ITO] A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 – also registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 was filed on 03.10.2016 declaring Nil income. In the course of assessment

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

Trust) engaged in the activity of promoting the game of cricket. It filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 in question declaring total income in the negative at Rs.(-)1,57,21,610/- and thereafter filed the revised return on 31/03/2011 showing revised total income in negative at Rs.(-) 4,50,00,000/-. The ITA Nos.999, 1000, 1001/Ahd/2017

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

Trust) engaged in the activity of promoting the game of cricket. It filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 in question declaring total income in the negative at Rs.(-)1,57,21,610/- and thereafter filed the revised return on 31/03/2011 showing revised total income in negative at Rs.(-) 4,50,00,000/-. The ITA Nos.999, 1000, 1001/Ahd/2017

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

Trust) engaged in the activity of promoting the game of cricket. It filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 in question declaring total income in the negative at Rs.(-)1,57,21,610/- and thereafter filed the revised return on 31/03/2011 showing revised total income in negative at Rs.(-) 4,50,00,000/-. The ITA Nos.999, 1000, 1001/Ahd/2017

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

271(l)(c). 2. Facts of the case are as emanates from the assessment order: 3. The Baroda Cricket Association is registered trust vide Registration No. F/881/Baroda dated 04.11,1996 with Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Baroda. The assessee trust is registered u/s.!2AA of the I.T. Act vide order EXEMPTION/I 10-23-13/2000-01 dated

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT STATE PLASTIC MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

271 (1) (c ) of the Act. IV. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. V. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

PARAG DAVE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-3(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

section 35(1)(i) could be cancelled as per the procedure contemplated in Income Tax Act. The funds which were not used for objects of the trust that can be brought to tax in hands of the said scientific research institute. A perusal of the scheme of Income Tax Act, it would reveal that once the donation has been made

SHRI RUSHABHDEV SWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

charitable trust under section 12AA of the Act. The Assessing Officer received information through NMS/Insight database indicating that cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 21,56,720/- and bank interest income of Rs. 1,37,082/- were recorded in certain bank accounts during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, corresponding to PAN AAATR2081G. According

SATTARBHAI SULEMANBHAI MANSURI,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-15 Mr.Sattarbhai Sulemanbhai Mansuri Ito,Ward-3 Anjumarstrit Narth Gulam Floor Factri Vs. Himatnagar. Sarvoday Soc, Polo Ground Himatnagar Sabarkantha 383 001. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Varis Isani, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

271(1) (c) stating that assessee has not correctly disclosed the capital gain hence penalty was initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. PRAYER: It is therefore prayed that, 1. It is therefore

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed

1,47,98,329/- as an income of the Appellant. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in not allowing the benefit of section 11(2) of the Act and thereby treating an amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/- as the income of the Appellant. 9. The learned