THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

trust carrying on charitable activities of education and medical relief and registered u/s. 12A of the Act vide order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka-2, Bangalore dated 18.04.1997.For the impugned year it had claimed exemption of 15% of its gross income u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act,the gross receipts being Rs. 51,05,58,582/-,while

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

Charitable Public Trust [2015] 56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

Charitable Public Trust [2015] 56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

Charitable Public Trust [2015] 56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

Charitable Public Trust [2015] 56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

Charitable Public Trust [2015] 56 taxmann.com 182. 5.9 As discussed above, the denial of exemption section 11 & 12 by the AO is based on the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. In this regard the appellant reiterated that they have offered sum of Rs. 18.90 crore in PMGKY and taken the benefit of the scheme which covers more

BHANDARI CHARITABLE TRUST,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Charitable Trust vs. ITO(E) Asst.Year –2015-16 giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering evidences on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. Hence, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Ground No.4:- The claim of depreciation

THE JT. CIT(EXEMPTION)(OSD), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. DIVYA JYOTI TRUST, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Jt.Cit (Exemptions)(Osd) Divya Jyoti Trust Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Tejas Eye Hospital Suthar Faliyaat & Post – Mandvi Surat 394 610. Pan : Aabtd 3401 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 7.6.2019 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-9/10321/Dcit(E), Cir.2-/17-18Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

charitable purposes and also considered the controversial issue of allowing the depreciation. The amendment brought in the Statute book by inserting the provisions of sub-section (6) and (7) w.e.f. 1.04.2015 to redress the controversy over allowing the depreciation on the capital assets generated by spending the corpus donation or revenue receipts generated by carrying out other activities. In section

GUJARAT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

charitable trust. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in law and on facts by upholding the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer despite the fact that the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, the very basis of the order passed by the Id. AO, was invalid, as it failed to comply with the requirement

GUJARAT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

charitable trust. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in law and on facts by upholding the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer despite the fact that the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, the very basis of the order passed by the Id. AO, was invalid, as it failed to comply with the requirement

THE DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

depreciation in the instant facts. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that in the case of CIT v. Kantilal Jaikishandas Choksi Charitable Trust

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (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

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

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

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

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

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

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

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

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

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, 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

depreciation and other common expenses in the ratio of Guwahati sales to total sales, assessee adopted a different method division only for employee benefit expenses, resulting in lower allocation to the eligible unit and thereby inflating profits of the 80-IE unit. The AO rejected the assessee’s methodology as inconsistent, and being insufficiently supported and based on unverifiable division

SOCIETY FOR DENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION & RESEARCH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has allowed irregular exemption. As per audit report, it is noticed that total income of the assessee trust was Rs. 958.42 lakh which was inclusive of Rs. 472 lakh received as grant from the State Government. It is also observed that while calculating the exemptionof 15% of the income

TORRENT POWER GRID LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation is well within the provisions of law, however the claim of donation u/s 80G on CSR expenses, the same is to be upheld and in support of the same relied on the decision of Delhi Bench ITAT in the case of M/s. Agilant Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd. –Vs- ACIT, NFAC Delhi reported in (2024) 140 Taxmann.com 238 (Del. Trib