AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

disallowance of these expenditures u/s 80G, if other conditions of section 80G are fulfilled. There is no allegation of Revenue that other conditions of Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground.” 8.2. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alubond Dacs India (P.) Ltd. (cited supra) considered the provisions of Companies

SEQUEL LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

disallowance of these expenditures u/s 80G, if other conditions of section 80G are fulfilled. There is no allegation of Revenue that other conditions of Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground.” 8.2. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alubond Dacs India (P.) Ltd. (cited supra) considered the provisions of Companies

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)

disallowance of these expenditures u/s 80G, if other conditions of section 80G are fulfilled. There is no allegation of Revenue that other conditions of Section 80G are not fulfilled. We, thus sustain the ground.” I.T.A.No.1191/Ahd/2025 9 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No Torrent Power Grid Ltd. vs. PCIT 8.2. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alubond

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

disallowance of the entire CSR expenditure, and a separate claim under section 80G was made, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Coordinate Bench in Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) has held that the restriction under section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk) and (iiihl) is confined only to donations made to the Swachh Bharat Kosh

VIMAL COAL PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5) of the Act and engaged in\neducation-related activities. The assessee disallowed the entire CSR\nexpenditure under section 37(1) in the computation of business income and\nthereafter claimed 50% deduction under section 80G of the Act. The CIT(A),\nwhile acknowledging that the donations are not covered by the exclusions in\nsection 80G(2)(iiihk) or (iiihl), nevertheless

PATEL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), SURAT, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance under Section 37(1) and eligibility for deduction under Section 80G, and the Revenue had not alleged any failure on part of the assessee to meet other Section 80G conditions. The Mumbai Bench in Alubond Dacs India P Ltd. vs. DCIT (2024) 163 taxmann. com 536 (Mum) held that CSR expenses, although statutorily required under Section

VIBRANT ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the Principal CIT is quashed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

VI-A, except sections 80JJAA and 80M of the Act, were barred for a Company opting for the concessional rate under section 115BAA of the Act. The present assessment year being AY 2020–21, the restriction on deduction under section 80G was not applicable. Further, on the second issue regarding the allowability of CSR expenditure under section 80G

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

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

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

5)(vi) of the I.T. Act in parallel with application for registration u/s. 12A in Form No. 10A dated 10.10.2012. Since one of the requirement for approval u/s. 80G, the trust must be registered u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act. As such, the trust do not fulfill the above condition. Therefore, the trust vide letter dated 26.03.2013 received in this

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

5)(vi) of the I.T. Act in parallel with application for registration u/s. 12A in Form No. 10A dated 10.10.2012. Since one of the requirement for approval u/s. 80G, the trust must be registered u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act. As such, the trust do not fulfill the above condition. Therefore, the trust vide letter dated 26.03.2013 received in this

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

5)(vi) of the I.T. Act in parallel with application for registration u/s. 12A in Form No. 10A dated 10.10.2012. Since one of the requirement for approval u/s. 80G, the trust must be registered u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act. As such, the trust do not fulfill the above condition. Therefore, the trust vide letter dated 26.03.2013 received in this

HESTER BIOSCIENCE LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5. On the issue of interest under section 201(1A), the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had already disallowed a total sum of ₹1,75,61,505/- under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, which includes the interest amount of Rs. 98,791/- reported in the Tax Audit Report. This disallowance was reflected

TTEC INDIA CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ttec India Customer Solutions Pr.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Ttec Ahmedabad Vs. Income Tax-3 Opp: L.J.College Vejalpur Off: Sg Road, Makarba Ahmedabad. Fatewadi Bo, Fatewadi Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccm 1005A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vishal Kabra, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

VI adjustment of Rs.9,40,58,390 was offered as income as required under the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards. It was clarified that no loss on foreign currency fluctuation was incurred during the year. These disclosures were accepted by the Assessing Officer. In respect of its international operations, the assessee had declared income from the Manila branch at Rs.31

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE KHODAL DHAM TRUST, KAGWAD, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.904/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T.(Exemptions) Shree Khodal Dham Trust, Circle-2, Vs. Kagwad, Ahmedabad. Alka Society, 4Th Floor, Shri Sardar Patel Bhavan, Near Water Tank, Rajkot-360004. Pan: Aajts1017J

80G(5) of the Income tax Act. These facts have not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the trust is a legal entity registered with the Charity Commissioner and Income Tax Department. The computation of income reveals that during the year under consideration, the trust had income from other sources to the tune

E INFOCHIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance of such sum in the assessment order. Therefore, the order of the A.O. was found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. E Infochips Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2020-21 3. Accordingly, a notice u/s.263 of the IT. Act dated 27/06/2024 was issued to the assessee fixing the hearing on 25/07/2024. 4. In response thereto