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

36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India…” Section 13(i)(d) “(d) 1 in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable

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

36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India…” Section 13(i)(d) “(d) 1 in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable

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

36]; 68[(ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long-term finance for urban infrastructure in India…” Section 13(i)(d) “(d) 1 in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

iii) Strategically, Arrow Electronics Inc, USA, has pursued aggressive growth with strategic acquisitions to bring a suite of valued added services for its clients for higher stickiness and a larger catchment of clients. As a part of this philosophy, Arrow Electronics Inc, USA has acquired around 40 companies around the world since 2009. Arrow Electronics Inc, USA acquired e-Infochips

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

iii) Strategically, Arrow Electronics Inc, USA, has pursued\naggressive growth with strategic acquisitions to bring a suite of\nvalued added services for its clients for higher stickiness and a\nlarger catchment of clients. As a part of this philosophy, Arrow\nElectronics Inc, USA has acquired around 40 companies around the\nworld since 2009. Arrow Electronics Inc, USA acquired e-Infochips

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

iii) Strategically, Arrow Electronics Inc, USA, has pursued\naggressive growth with strategic acquisitions to bring a suite of\nvalued added services for its clients for higher stickiness and a\nlarger catchment of clients. As a part of this philosophy, Arrow\nElectronics Inc, USA has acquired around 40 companies around the\nworld since 2009. Arrow Electronics Inc, USA acquired e-Infochips

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.

iii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing depreciation on the assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as a deduction on account of application of income as this would amount to double deduction. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals

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.

iii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in allowing depreciation on the assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as a deduction on account of application of income as this would amount to double deduction. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2589/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Gujarat Cricket Dcit, बनाम/ Exemptions, Circle-1, Association Vs. Ahmedabad Iind Floor, Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Nr. Vijay Char Rasta, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaa Ag1 205 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

iii) Alternative Ground of Appeal: The learned A.O. and Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) have erred in law and on facts in rejecting the claim of assessee that when Exemption u/s. 11 and 12, is not granted to assessee by applying Proviso to section 2(15) and section 13(8), the amounts paid by BCCI being not contractual payments i.e. voluntary

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.

iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

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.

iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

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.

iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

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.

iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

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.

iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

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.

iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 which falls under the head “Profit and Gains from business and profession” of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be available to a charitable trust whose income is otherwise not assessable under the above head. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013

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

iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC); and (v) specific provisions governing capital gains override the general MAT machinery. 33. We also note that

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

iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC); and (v) specific provisions governing capital gains override the general MAT machinery. 33. We also note that

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

iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC); and (v) specific provisions governing capital gains override the general MAT machinery. 33. We also note that

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

iii) there is no express bar in section 115JB excluding indexation (iv) denying indexation leads to taxation of unreal income, contrary to the real income theory recognised by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC); and (v) specific provisions governing capital gains override the general MAT machinery. 33. We also note that