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

11 months in making the application u/s 80 G (5) (iii) of income tax act, 1961. In view of the above, it is prayed to the Hon'ble ITAT to condone the delay in making application of approval U/s 80G of Income Tax Act, 1961 the interest of natural justice and oblige so as to avoid unnecessary hard-ship against

THE NA vs. ARI AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,NAVSARIVS.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: 30.09.2022 As It Has Already Commenced 06.03.2004 Activities On 06-03-2022. 2. The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Has Erred In Facts & In Law In Rejecting The Application Under Section 80G (5) For The Reason That The Trust University Has Made Application For Final Registration Within The Validity Of Provisional Registration & That The Provisional Registration Is Valid Till Ay 2025-26. 3. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law, The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Erred In Rejecting Assessee'S Application U/S 80G(5) Filed On 28.03.2023 On The Ground That Assessee Didn'T File The Application Before 30.09.2022 When The Assessee Has Filed The Application In Time As Per The Extension Granted Till 30.09.2023 As Per Circular No.6/2023 Dated 29-05-2023

11. In the case of Anudip Foundation for Social Welfare vs. CIT(E) 160 taxmann.com 624 (Kolkata – Tribunal), the Tribunal has held that where assessee had been granted provisional approval under clause (iv) to first to section 80G(5), application nor final approval under clause (iii) to first proviso to section 80G(5) could not be rejected on ground that

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

delayed by almost about 2.5 months from the extended date. The Tribunal considered this issue and finally in para 6.1 noted and the relevant reads as under:- There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee is provisionally registered till A.Y. 2024-25 vide order dated 27.10.2021. Thus it has complied with section 80G(5). The proviso to this

TATAM SEVA SANSTHAN,BHAVNAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMEPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delayed by almost about 2.5 months from the extended date. The Tribunal considered this issue and finally in para 6.1 noted and the relevant reads as under:- There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee is provisionally registered till A.Y. 2024-25 vide order dated 27.10.2021. Thus it has complied with section 80G(5). The proviso to this

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

delayed by almost about 2.5 months from the extended date. The Tribunal considered this issue and finally in para 6.1 noted and the relevant reads as under:- There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee is provisionally registered till A.Y. 2024-25 vide order dated 27.10.2021. Thus it has complied with section 80G(5). The proviso to this

ADANI EDUCATION FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condonation of delay in fling of present application. The DR submitted that approaching ITAT for relief for grant of extension of timeline is not the correct course of action, looking into the instant set of facts. The DR placed reliance on the observation made by CIT(Exemptions) in the order rejecting the application for grant of final registration under Section

ADANI KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condonation of delay in fling of present application. The DR submitted that approaching ITAT for relief for grant of extension of timeline is not the correct course of action, looking into the instant set of facts. The DR placed reliance on the observation made by CIT(Exemptions) in the order rejecting the application for grant of final registration under Section

RABDI VIBHAG PROGRESSIVE KELAVNI MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 80(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) should be condoned in the interest of justice. For that we rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

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)

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11

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)

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11

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)

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11

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)

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11

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)

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11

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)

delay can thus be not ignored or condoned and the exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration and also perused the materials on record, the Ld CIT DR is correct in his argument that filing of Form 10 is mandatory under section 11

BHURABHAI PUNJABHAI PARSANA FOUNDATION,RAJKOT, GUJARAT vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION) , AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delayed by almost about 2.5 months from the extended date. The Tribunal considered this issue and finally in para 6.1 noted and the relevant reads as under:- There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee is provisionally registered till A.Y. 2024-25 vide order dated 27.10.2021. Thus it has complied with section 80G(5). The proviso to this

HEALTH FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE,DAHOD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

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

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

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10B and direct the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12 in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to recompute the income of the assessee after granting exemption under section 11 and treating

SHREE HARSANIJI PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), PALANPUR

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Harsaniji Public Charitable Trust Ito (Exemption) 32, Shiv Society Part-2 Vs Palanpur. Nr.B.K. Cinema Mehsana 384 002. Pan : Aaats 7750 B.

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. 11. In our considered view, the AO as well as CIT(A) are not ready to follow 67 years old Circular and the provisions viz. sub-section (9) of section 139 of the Act, in letter and spirit. We also find that the ld.CIT(A), NAFC has simply extracted

ELECTRONICS & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,GANDHINAGAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU CURRENT JURIS. -THE DY.CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ld. Pcit, Which Was Pending Consideration. Therefore Assessee Filed Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed Stating That The Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay, Thereby Confirmed The Addition Made By Cpc.

11(2) of the Act on ground that assessee had failed to furnish Form No. 10 before date of furnishing return under section 139(1) - Assessee filed an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act praying for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10 and accordingly, the same was rejected. The Hon'ble High Court noted that

AKSHAT EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is\nadmitted for adjudication on merits.\nFacts of the Case\n7. The appellant is a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay\nPublic Trusts Act, 1950, vide Registration No. E/3082/Anand dated\n26.09.2013, and is engaged in running various educational institutions\nunder the name Adharshila Vidhyalaya. On 06.02.2024, the appellant filed