SHRI MAHUDI MADHUPURI JAIN NSM BHOJANSHALA & PRASHADI BHAVAN,,MAHUDI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, EXEMPTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

b) amend clause (ba) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act to provide that the person in receipt of the income shall furnish the return of income for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (4A) of section 139 of the Act, within the time allowed under sub- section (1) or sub-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:

b) of the Act, and observed that the assessee had not sought such condonation from the competent authority. The CIT(Appeals) held that neither CPC nor the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(Appeals) had jurisdiction to condone such delay. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the action of CPC in denying the benefit of section 11 and dismissed the appeal, holding

SHRI MAHAVIR GOPALAN CHARITABLE TRUST,KAPADVANJ vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTIONS) BHAVNAGAR PRESENTLY THE ITO (EXEMPTION), VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowance of claim of\ndeemed application of its income by the AO. And, the\nLd.CIT(A) appears to have been passed order without\nunderstanding the underlying issue, which was there before\nit.\nWe shall explain the reasons for arriving at our above\nunfortunate conclusions as under:\nWhile the order of the Ld. CIT(A) begins with reproduction\nof grounds

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

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years

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

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years

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

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years

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

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years

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

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years

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

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was held that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as precedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command. ITA Nos. 847to850/Ahd/2025 & 912to915/Ahd/2025 DCIT vs. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. Eris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst. Years

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

Appeals are allowed

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

disallowed capital expenditure amounted to Rs. 7,93,12,126/-. The AO also identified unexplained transaction of Rs. 89,21,987/- and added to the total income. 2.19. While assessing the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18, the AO gave credit of Rs. 8,01,76,700/- in case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

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

disallowed capital expenditure amounted to Rs. 7,93,12,126/-. The AO also identified unexplained transaction of Rs. 89,21,987/- and added to the total income. 2.19. While assessing the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18, the AO gave credit of Rs. 8,01,76,700/- in case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

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

disallowed capital expenditure amounted to Rs. 7,93,12,126/-. The AO also identified unexplained transaction of Rs. 89,21,987/- and added to the total income. 2.19. While assessing the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18, the AO gave credit of Rs. 8,01,76,700/- in case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

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

disallowed capital expenditure amounted to Rs. 7,93,12,126/-. The AO also identified unexplained transaction of Rs. 89,21,987/- and added to the total income. 2.19. While assessing the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18, the AO gave credit of Rs. 8,01,76,700/- in case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

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

disallowed capital expenditure amounted to Rs. 7,93,12,126/-. The AO also identified unexplained transaction of Rs. 89,21,987/- and added to the total income. 2.19. While assessing the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18, the AO gave credit of Rs. 8,01,76,700/- in case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was\nheld that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as\nprecedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command.\n20. We therefore hold that the learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the\nexcise duty refund constitutes a capital receipt or that

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

Appeal are dismissed

B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266, it was\nheld that where the statutory language is plain, external aids such as\nprecedents cannot be used to obscure or rewrite the legislative command.\n20. We therefore hold that the learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the\nexcise duty refund constitutes a capital receipt or that

DAWOODI BOHRA MUSAFIRKHANA TRUST,KHAMBHAT vs. THE ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Income-Tax Officer, Trust, Ward (Exemption), 1, Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana, Vadodara Opp. Bus Stand, Khambhat, Gujarat-388620 Pan : Aaatd 2007 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

disallowance made by the Ld. AO of capital expenditure of Rs.99,12,380/-. Therefore your appellant prays your honour to allow the capital expenditure of Rs.99,12,380/- as application of income.” 3. At the outset, it was stated that there was a solitary issue in the present appeal, being the allowance of claim of exemption to corpus donation

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

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowing exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Assessee filed Form 10B electronically in accordance with requirements of section 12A(1)(b