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) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

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) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

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) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

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) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

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) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

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) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

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

11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 8.8 It further appears that various courses conducted

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

11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 8.8 It further appears that various courses conducted

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

11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 8.8 It further appears that various courses conducted

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

11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 8.8 It further appears that various courses conducted

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 68 of the Act prevailing in year under consideration as under: "68, Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 68 of the Act prevailing in year under consideration as under: "68, Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 68 of the Act prevailing in year under consideration as under: "68, Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

11 & 12, the Tribunal found that the assessee's activities were charitable and that Section 13(1)(c) was not applicable as the transaction was not for the benefit of the trustee.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "68

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

11 & 12 was based on an incorrect invocation of Section 13(1)(c) as there was no benefit derived by the trustee from the trust's property or income. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the Assessee was partly allowed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "68

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of the Act in respect of sale consideration of shares of e-infochips Limited. Further, the Assessing Officer had also denied exemption under Section 11

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: (a) Revenue Expenditure

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: (a) Revenue Expenditure

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: (a) Revenue Expenditure