THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.UNITED WAYOF BARODA, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNITED WAY OF BARODA,, VADODARA

In the result, ITA No. 3565/Ahd/16 is dismissed

15 “I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the is Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,46,802/- which the disallowed

GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD (GHB),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE D.C.I.T. (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Him) Of Denying Exemption To The Appellant’S Income U/S.11 & 12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed In The Appellant’S Return, On The Ground That The Appellant’S Case Attracted The First Proviso To Section 2(15) & In Turn, Sub-Section(8) Of Section 13 Of The Act.

Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act.” Gujarat Housing Board Vs. DCIT (Exemption) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 3 of 17 4. The Assessing Officer thus disallowed

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION),CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. NANDESARI INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,, NANDESARI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

15) of the Act. 2.The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in the law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,85,05,353/- made on account of disallowance of capital expenditure without appreciating the fact that once the proviso to section

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowing exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO, in considering the activities carried out by the appellant are in nature of trade, commerce and business and therefore covered by the proviso to section 2(15

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

Section 2(15) of the Act. The AO accordingly denied the benefit of exemption under s.11 of the Act on the profits generated by the assessee authority and carried disallowances

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed

Section 2(15). The Tribunal, therefore, rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance of exemption. 33. On a similar

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

section 14A, after considering the details and explanation furnished. He drew attention to the assessment order where the AO observed that the assessee had incurred indirect expenditure and that the method adopted by the assessee lacked objective quantification or cogent basis. In view thereof, the AO proceeded to invoke Rule 8D and compute disallowance at Rs.8,26,43,616/- 15

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)

Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee has explained that it has been engaged in the field of education the detail reply of the assessee is reproduced as under:- “I.Section 2(15) : Proviso : Para 1to 7 of notice dt. 13.12.2016) It has been stated in your Honour’s notice under reference in the above paragraphs that our activities

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

disallowance of financial charges paid of Rs. 3,15,000/- invoking section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 15. Ld. A.O. has discussed