THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the respective Assessment Years (A.Y.). Since the issues involved are common, they are decided through a common order. Facts of the case 2. The assessee is a closely held company and engaged in providing micro credit finance. It was incorporated

SHRI MANAV VIKAS FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJ, TL. VADHAVAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

disallowed. Furthermore, the appellant also requested to keep the present appeal proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of condonation application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Pr. CIT(Exemptions). New Delhi. In this regard, kind attention is drawn to the provisions of section 12A

TAPOVAN EDUCATION TRUST,,VADODARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The reasons for the additions and denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act were that the assessee was unable to enter the details of registration granted to the assessee under Section 12A

TAPOVAN EDUCATION TRUST,VADODARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The reasons for the additions and denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act were that the assessee was unable to enter the details of registration granted to the assessee under Section 12A

TAPOVAN EDUCATION TRUST,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CPC,, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The reasons for the additions and denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act were that the assessee was unable to enter the details of registration granted to the assessee under Section 12A

VINAYAKA EDUCATION TRUST,NADIAD vs. THE DDIT, CPC, BENGALURU JURIS. AO- THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

12A of the Act since\n05.01.2011, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2021-22 in\nForm ITR-7 on 31.12.2021. The assessee declared nil income after claiming\nexemption under section 11. It is on record that the assessee had incurred\nrevenue expenditure of Rs.3,67,53,006 towards its charitable objects and had\nclaimed accumulation under section

RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION,ANAND vs. CPC, BENGALURU JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-EXEMPTION, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.927/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rural Development Cpc, Bengaluru बनाम/ Foundation Juris.Ao – The Ito Ward- V/S. Aitc, 2Nd Floor Exemption Narayan Complex Vadodara – 390 007 Nr.Shubh Laxmi Shopping Centre Station Road Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabtr 1090 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 21/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Rural Development Foundation Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru Juris Ao The Ito, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20

12A(1)(b) read with Rule 17B. The return of income was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, under section 143(1) of the Act, wherein the exemption claimed under sections 11 and 12 was denied due to the delay in filing and non-submission of the audit report. Consequently, the CPC raised a demand

TRILOKNATH VATSALYA VATIKA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT,CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JAO- THE ITO, WARD-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1092/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Triloknath Vatsalya Vatika The Dy.Cit बनाम/ At Balva Cpc Bangalore. V/S. Nr. Tahuko Hotel Present Jao Kalol The Ito Ward-1(Exemption) Gandhinagar – 382 001 Ahmedabad-380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aants 5604 B (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10/03/2025 Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-Gwalior [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

12A of the Act had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring nil income and claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. It is an admitted position that although the return of income was filed belatedly beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1), it was nonetheless filed within the permissible time limit

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

12A) Nothing contained in sub-section (12) shall apply to any enterprise or undertaking which is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger on or after the 1st day of April, 2007.] 78[(13) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any Special Economic Zones notified on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

12A) Nothing contained in sub-section (12) shall apply to any enterprise or undertaking which is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger on or after the 1st day of April, 2007.] 78[(13) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any Special Economic Zones notified on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

12A) Nothing contained in sub-section (12) shall apply to any enterprise or undertaking which is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger on or after the 1st day of April, 2007.] 78[(13) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any Special Economic Zones notified on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB

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

disallowance may be deleted. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. C1T(A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. AO has erred in not excluding the reduction for indexation cost on sale of Long term Asset by Rs. 4,20,45,455/- from the book profit u/s. 115JB