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 is adjudicated in subsequent paras. IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 - 12– 6.12 So far as loan taken from Abedabibi Mehboob Foda for Rs.22,05,000/- is concerned (Sr. No.1), the appellant has submitted sufficient evidences as tabularized herein above (para

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

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

68,741/- as income of the Appellant by invoking proviso to Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act.” 3. Learned

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

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

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

THE DY.DIT, (EXEMP.),, AHMEDABAD vs. MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNICATIONS, RESEARCH & EDUCATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

15% of the income from such property than such income is not to be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in respect of such income. 17. In light of above provision, let us examine the issue that, whether the capital expenditure of Rs.1,34,89,333/- incurred by the assessee is eligible for exemption

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 2(15) of the Act and disallowed as follows: 1. Claim of exemptions u/s. 11(2) of Rs. 12,60,81,401/- 2. Claim of exemptions u/s. 11(a)(a) of Rs. 13,68

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

section 11. He submits that the proviso to Section 2(15) will not come into play ITA Nos: 1257/Ahd/13, 3303/Ahd/16, 3304/Ahd/16, 408/Ahd/17 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13) ITA Nos: 336 and 337/Ahd/2015 and 2957/Ahd/2014, (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA Nos: 2839, 2840 and 2841/ Ahd/ 2017 (Assessment years