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 by invoking the provision of section 2

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 by invoking the provision of section 2

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 by invoking the provision of section 2

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 by invoking the provision of section 2

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.

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 exemption under section 11(1)(a) amounting to Rs.4,93,37,661/- and exemption under section 11(2

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

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

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 2

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 Income tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the Income tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in disallowing

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(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

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

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

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

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. The corpus donation of Rs.16,03,22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once