GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us is a cricket association, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, and is engaged in promotion of cricket in specified areas of Gujarat State. In the course

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us is a cricket association, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, and is engaged in promotion of cricket in specified areas of Gujarat State. In the course

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us is a cricket association, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, and is engaged in promotion of cricket in specified areas of Gujarat State. In the course

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us is a cricket association, registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, and is engaged in promotion of cricket in specified areas of Gujarat State. In the course

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

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

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

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

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

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

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

Appeals are allowed

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

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

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

reassessment. (c) The contents of the declaration shall not be admissible in evidence against the declarant for the purpose of any proceeding under any Act other than the Acts referred in Para- 8 above. 2.9. However, AO did not accept the submission of the assessee due to following reasons: 1. Total of amount worked out as per extrapolation exercise comes

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.4 Cr. received in the form of Corpus donation. 145. As regards grievance raised by the assessee in ground no. 3(a), we have already decided this issue in favour of the assessee, vide our order of even date for the assessment years

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

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

11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.4 Cr. received in the form of Corpus donation. 145. As regards grievance raised by the assessee in ground no. 3(a), we have already decided this issue in favour of the assessee, vide our order of even date for the assessment years

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

D. Income from other sources [as per Return of income] Rs. 80,07,21,966/- Assessed Income Rs. 18,07,02,90,489/- Brought forward losses of Rs. 2,41,44,65,028/- Rs. Nil for A.Y. 2013-14 Adjusted fully by the Dept. while passing order for A.Y. 2015-16 Gross Total Income

ITO(EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD vs. CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or ITA Nos.1071 & 1072/Ahd/2013, CO No.82/Ahd/15 ITA No.829/Ahd/15 (By Revenue) &CO 83/Ahd/15 Chamunda Foundation vs. CIT/ACIT Asst.Years -2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. Therefore, we do not see any reason in interfering with the impugned orders

CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or ITA Nos.1071 & 1072/Ahd/2013, CO No.82/Ahd/15 ITA No.829/Ahd/15 (By Revenue) &CO 83/Ahd/15 Chamunda Foundation vs. CIT/ACIT Asst.Years -2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. Therefore, we do not see any reason in interfering with the impugned orders

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed