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

ii) education, (iii) Medical relief (iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section

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

ii) education, (iii) Medical relief (iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section

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

ii) education, (iii) Medical relief (iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section

INSPIRON ENGINEERING PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 968/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Inspiron Engineering Pvt Ltd., D.C.I.T, Survey No.320, Vs. Cirle-2(1)(1) Near Chotalal Bus Stand, Ahmedabad. Odhav Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad.

section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 3.4 Similarly the AO regarding the donations made to the Navjivan Charitable Trust

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

charitable trust in existence since\n2001 and registered under Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee\nhad received 80,00,000 numbers of equity shares of e-Infochips\nLimited as corpus donation from its trustee Shri Pratul Krishnakant\nShroff on 12.12.2017. Thereafter, all the shares of e-Infochips\nLimited, including those held by the assessee, were acquired by\nArrow Electronics

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

charitable trust in existence since\n2001 and registered under Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee\nhad received 80,00,000 numbers of equity shares of e-Infochips\nLimited as corpus donation from its trustee Shri Pratul Krishnakant\nShroff on 12.12.2017. Thereafter, all the shares of e-Infochips\nLimited, including those held by the assessee, were acquired by\nArrow Electronics

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)

35 (Guj.) (ii) Shree Dandhavya Chhasath Prajapati Samaj Vs. CIT(E) [2024] 167 taxmann.com 610 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) (iii) ‘A’ Shree Naminath Shwetamber Murtipujak Tapagachh Jain Religiouns Trust Vs. CIT(E) [2024] 167 taxmann.com 547 (Ahmedabad- Trib.) (iv) Shah Gulabchandmulchand Shree Parshwanath Trust Vapi Vs. CIT(E) [2024] 165 taxmann.com 731 (Surat-Trib.) (v) Islamic Academy of Education Vs. PCIT (Central

ITO(EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD vs. CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

35,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- The details of income earned by the assessee are as under: FY 2009-10 Rs. 2,22,94,074/- FY 2008-09 Rs. 1,88,26,808/- FY 2007-08 Rs. 38,12,635/- The AO also noticed that the assessee collected the fees from all students amounting to Rs. 5,06,55,100/- only

CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

35,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- The details of income earned by the assessee are as under: FY 2009-10 Rs. 2,22,94,074/- FY 2008-09 Rs. 1,88,26,808/- FY 2007-08 Rs. 38,12,635/- The AO also noticed that the assessee collected the fees from all students amounting to Rs. 5,06,55,100/- only

SHRI BHAVNAGAR DASHASHRIMALI KANTHIBANDH (VAISHNAV) VANIK GNATI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

35 (Guj.)]*, wherein the Hon’ble Court categorically held that section 13(1)(b) cannot be invoked while considering an application for registration under section 12A/12AB. The High Court observed that the scope of enquiry by the Commissioner at the registration stage is limited to examining (i) the genuineness of the trust or institution and its activities, and (ii) whether

GROW FOUNDATION GANDHINAGAR,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 9

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Charitable Trust vs. ITO 160 taxmann.com 475 (Chennai – Tribunal), while passing the order the Tribunal held that the Timeline prescribed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) should be treated as directory and not mandatory, hence, once timeline prescribed for filing Form N0.10A for recognition under section 12A had been extended up to 30.09.2023, same

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE KHODAL DHAM TRUST, KAGWAD, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.904/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T.(Exemptions) Shree Khodal Dham Trust, Circle-2, Vs. Kagwad, Ahmedabad. Alka Society, 4Th Floor, Shri Sardar Patel Bhavan, Near Water Tank, Rajkot-360004. Pan: Aajts1017J

35,03,780 and none of the expenditure is related to have been incurred for religious purpose. Even while passing the Assessment Order AO has allowed such expenditure from gross total income which supports the contention of Appellant that it has incurred substantial expenditure towards the object of the Trust. While making the above observation that Appellant has not carried

CLEAN TEETH CLEAN MOUTH CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

35 of the Act, till 30.06.2024; (ii) Form No. 10AB, in case of an application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section ( I) of section 12A or under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section

SHRI BHAVNAGAR DASHASHRIMALI KANTHIBANDH (VAISHNAV) VANIK GNATI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

35 (Guj.)]*, wherein the Hon'ble Court categorically held that\nsection 13(1)(b) cannot be invoked while considering an application for\nregistration under section 12A/12AB. The High Court observed that the\nscope of enquiry by the Commissioner at the registration stage is limited to\nexamining (i) the genuineness of the trust or institution and its activities,\nand (ii) whether

SHREE AATH PARAGANA GURJAR PRAJAPATI SAMAJ TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shree Aath Paragana Gurjar Prajapati The Cit(Exemption) Samaj Trust Vs. Vejalpur Prajapati Bhavan Chatrala Ahmedabad. Sola Railway Over Bridge Naittar Chede, Sola Ghatlodia. Pan : Abfts 9086 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri Saiyam Shah, Ar : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

35) which has given interpretation of Section 13(1)(b) while issuing registration under section 12A of the Act. Thus, the decision relied by the Ld. DR actually supports the applicant Trust’s case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shastri Yagnapurush Dasji vs. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya (1966 AIR 1119) has also reiterated the same and thus

NANA AND RANDER SUNNI VOHRA MEDICAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (EXEMPTION ) AHMEDABAD, AHMRDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

35 of the Act, till 30.06.2024; (ii) Form No. 10AB, in case of an application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section ( I) of section 12A or under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

ii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the stand of the Revenue that allowance of depreciation on the assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as a deduction on account of application of income, would amount to double deduction in view of the decision

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

ii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the stand of the Revenue that allowance of depreciation on the assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as a deduction on account of application of income, would amount to double deduction in view of the decision