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

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 13, the provision 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

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 13, the provision 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

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 13, the provision of section

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

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)

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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)

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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)

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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)

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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)

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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)

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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

2 of 24\ndated 31.03.2025, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the\nproceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act').\n\n2.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return\nof 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

2 of 24\n\ndated 31.03.2025, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the\nproceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act').\n\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return\nof income

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5., BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

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

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like