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.

6. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013 AYs: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Gujarat Cricket Association, Ahmedabad Page 3 of 39 7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned A.O. and Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not granting deduction

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.

6. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013 AYs: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Gujarat Cricket Association, Ahmedabad Page 3 of 39 7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned A.O. and Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not granting deduction

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.

6. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013 AYs: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Gujarat Cricket Association, Ahmedabad Page 3 of 39 7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned A.O. and Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not granting deduction

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.

6. Ground no. 2 is thus allowed. ITA Nos.1253, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Ahd/2013 AYs: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Gujarat Cricket Association, Ahmedabad Page 3 of 39 7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance: The learned A.O. and Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not granting deduction

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 12AA of the Act and also has got approval u/s 10(23C(vi) of the Act effective from A.Y.2015-16. It is also approved u/s 80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case

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

section 12AA of the Act and also has got approval u/s 10(23C(vi) of the Act effective from A.Y.2015-16. It is also approved u/s 80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case

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

section 12AA of the Act and also has got approval u/s 10(23C(vi) of the Act effective from A.Y.2015-16. It is also approved u/s 80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case

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

section 12AA of the Act and also has got approval u/s 10(23C(vi) of the Act effective from A.Y.2015-16. It is also approved u/s 80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case

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

section 12AA of the Act and also has got approval u/s 10(23C(vi) of the Act effective from A.Y.2015-16. It is also approved u/s 80G(5) of the act vide approval No. CITE/Ahd/80G(5)/781/PU/2016-17. 2.2. It is also pertinent to note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide its order dated 26-7-2023 in case

GMDC SCIENCE & RESEARCH CENTRE,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

6 stands in the statute book till 31.03.2023, it can be seen that charge is created to tax the accumulation which was mis-utilised/mis- applied [Section 11(3)(a)] or accumulation which ceases to remain invested in form or modes specified in sub-section (5) [Section 11(3)(b)] or accumulation which was credited or paid to any trust

GMDC SCIENCE & RESEARCH CENTRE,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

6 stands in the statute book till 31.03.2023, it can be seen that charge is created to tax the accumulation which was mis-utilised/mis- applied [Section 11(3)(a)] or accumulation which ceases to remain invested in form or modes specified in sub-section (5) [Section 11(3)(b)] or accumulation which was credited or paid to any trust

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.

reassessment. This was not a mere irregularity or a defect which could be cured, but question of jurisdiction of the authority to reopen the assessment. Therefore, the notice was liable to be quashed.” We also note that the assessee before the learned CIT (A) has also objected the validity of the notice issued under section

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.

reassessment. This was not a mere irregularity or a defect which could be cured, but question of jurisdiction of the authority to reopen the assessment. Therefore, the notice was liable to be quashed.” We also note that the assessee before the learned CIT (A) has also objected the validity of the notice issued under section

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(E) erred in fact and in law in invoking revision power u/s 263 of the Act on an issue of allowability of exemption u/s 11 of the Act despite the fact that proceeding u/s 263 cannot be initiated on debatable issue. Gujarat Technological University vs. CIT(E) Asst. Year

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

6. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and gone through the judicial precedents cited before us. The limited issue arising for our adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 were invalid

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

6. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and gone through the judicial precedents cited before us. The limited issue arising for our adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 were invalid

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

6. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and gone through the judicial precedents cited before us. The limited issue arising for our adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 were invalid

YAKIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

6. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record, and gone through the judicial precedents cited before us. The limited issue arising for our adjudication is whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 by issuance of notice under section 148 were invalid