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(2),(5) and 13(i)(d) of the Act which read as follows: 23Income24 from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 2511. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the 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

11(2),(5) and 13(i)(d) of the Act which read as follows: 23Income24 from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 2511. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the 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

11(2),(5) and 13(i)(d) of the Act which read as follows: 23Income24 from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 2511. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income

THE JT. CIT(EXEMPTION)(OSD), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. DIVYA JYOTI TRUST, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Jt.Cit (Exemptions)(Osd) Divya Jyoti Trust Cir.2, Ahmedabad. Vs Tejas Eye Hospital Suthar Faliyaat & Post – Mandvi Surat 394 610. Pan : Aabtd 3401 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 7.6.2019 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-9/10321/Dcit(E), Cir.2-/17-18Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68,45,899/- and claimed the same as exempt under section 11(1)(d) of the Act. During the year, the trust has acquired fixed assets to the tune of Rs.2,51,85,640/- and claimed the same as application of income under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The position of law, as of pre- amended

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.

5 dated 29th September 2001 which specifically states that the TV subsidies should henceforth be sent to the Member Associations towards “corpus funds”. There is no dispute that the TV subsidy in question is sent under this resolution. On these facts, and in the light of the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) which only require the income

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.

5 dated 29th September 2001 which specifically states that the TV subsidies should henceforth be sent to the Member Associations towards “corpus funds”. There is no dispute that the TV subsidy in question is sent under this resolution. On these facts, and in the light of the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) which only require the income

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.

5 dated 29th September 2001 which specifically states that the TV subsidies should henceforth be sent to the Member Associations towards “corpus funds”. There is no dispute that the TV subsidy in question is sent under this resolution. On these facts, and in the light of the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) which only require the income

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.

5 dated 29th September 2001 which specifically states that the TV subsidies should henceforth be sent to the Member Associations towards “corpus funds”. There is no dispute that the TV subsidy in question is sent under this resolution. On these facts, and in the light of the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) which only require the income

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.

5 dated 29th September 2001 which specifically states that the TV subsidies should henceforth be sent to the Member Associations towards “corpus funds”. There is no dispute that the TV subsidy in question is sent under this resolution. On these facts, and in the light of the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) which only require the income

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.

5 dated 29th September 2001 which specifically states that the TV subsidies should henceforth be sent to the Member Associations towards “corpus funds”. There is no dispute that the TV subsidy in question is sent under this resolution. On these facts, and in the light of the provisions of Section 11(1)(d) which only require the income

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

11,00,000/- is deleted. 6.16 So far as loan taken from Khaleda Jarda for Rs 82,000/- is concerned (Sr No 5), the appellant has submitted sufficient evidences as tabularised herein above which prove that the appellant has discharged its onus as cast u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing officer in assessment order has referred to summons issued

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

11,00,000/- is deleted. 6.16 So far as loan taken from Khaleda Jarda for Rs 82,000/- is concerned (Sr No 5), the appellant has submitted sufficient evidences as tabularised herein above which prove that the appellant has discharged its onus as cast u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing officer in assessment order has referred to summons issued

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

11,00,000/- is deleted. 6.16 So far as loan taken from Khaleda Jarda for Rs 82,000/- is concerned (Sr No 5), the appellant has submitted sufficient evidences as tabularised herein above which prove that the appellant has discharged its onus as cast u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing officer in assessment order has referred to summons issued

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

68 of the Act in respect of sale consideration of\nshares of e-infochips Limited. Further, the Assessing Officer had also\ndenied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act as claimed by the\nassessee.\n\n3.\nAggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had\nfiled an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which

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

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

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

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