SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND TRUST,ADIPUR vs. THE DCIT (CPC) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

charitable Trust under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 30.01.2015. The assessee received Audit Report in Form No. 10B on 24.04.2014 and physically filed the same before the Assessing Officer namely ITO, Gandhidham on 20.05.2014. Invoking section 139

SHREE SWAMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST ,RAMPAR vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD - 1, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.340/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21)

charitable organizations. Due to absence of registration, tax liability is fastened even though they may otherwise be eligible for exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section 12A of the Income

LATE ARJAN KANJI PUJARA SMARK CHARITABLE TRUST BHACHAU,BHACHAU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust vs. DCIT, CPC 5.1. Thus following this instructions, the assessee made rectification applications on 14.02.2018, 15.04.2019 and 25.05.2020 which were not disposed of by the A.O. It is thereafter the assessee filed the present appeal before Ld. NFAC with a delay of 852 days, we find that “sufficient cause” is being proved by the assesse in filing

SHRI JAIN SWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK TAPGACHCHH SANGHA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE NFAC (APPEALS) DELHI, DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 139(4A) – Every person in receipt of income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable

KAKADIYA PARIVARNA KULDEVI SHREE BRAHMANI KHODIYAR TRUST,AMRELI vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION, WARD(2), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiassessment Year: (2021-2022) Kakadiya Parivarna Kuldevi Sghree The Ito Exemption Brahmani Khodiyar Trust Ward-2, Rajkot. Vs. Jaysukhbhai Laljibhai Kakadiya Jarkhida, Ta. Lathi, Amreli Pan : Aadtk 1328 E (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr

section 11 in accordance with law. iv. Social Security Scheme of GICEA (2023) 147 taxmann.com 283 (Gujarat HC) wherein it was held that where assessee was a public charitable trust for past 30 years and substantially satisfied conditions for availing exemption u/s 11, it should not be denied exemption merely on bar of limitation especially when legislature had conferred wide

PATEL KELAVANI MANDAL,TAPOVAN SHAIKSHNIK SANKUL vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 2, RAJKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 278/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Patel Kelavani Mandal, Junagadh. Vs. The Ito (E), Ward – 2, Tapovan Shaikshnik Sankul, Aaykar Bhavan, Bilkha Road, Race Course Ring Road, Junagadh - 362001 Rajkot - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtp7542H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Charitable Trust, is running different types of educational institutions. The assessee has been registered u/s.12AA of the Act w.e.f. AY 2015-16. As such, for the impugned AY 2010-11, the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption of its income u/s.11, 12 and 13 of the Act. The assessee did not file its return of income for the impugned

SHRI SAJADIALI SARDAR PATEL SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD. ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1)(2), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.607/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Ito Ward-2, (1) (2) Vs. Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Rajkot – 360001 At Sajadiyali – Rajkot New Aayakar Bhavan, At Sajadiyali Taluka, Race Course Ring Road, Jamkandorana, Dist, Rajkot – 360001 Sajadiyali – Rajkot 360001 Gujrat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2374L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22 / 04/2025

Section 80P and accept the M.A. filed by the revenue and accordingly amend its own previous order and restore the order of CPC as the provision of act U/s 80 AC (ii) are very clear on this point that for seeking chapter VIA part C deduction, income tax return need to be filed within time and as in case

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

139(1) or in the return filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer stated that the appellant initially did not claim exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab)(iiiad) of the Act in the ITR u/s.139(1) as well as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, the appellant has claimed

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

139(1) or in the return filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer stated that the appellant initially did not claim exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab)(iiiad) of the Act in the ITR u/s.139(1) as well as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, the appellant has claimed

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND TRUST,ADIPUR vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.902/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust The Ito (Exemption) बनाम Plot No.1, Dc-2 Ward-1 Rambaug Road Rajkot. Vs. Ward-6A, Adipur. Pan : Aabts 1102 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Chennai[In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac’], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 02.05.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Intimation Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Cpc) U/S 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 31.10.2015. Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust 2 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under:

section 11 of the Act. The assessee claimed to have obtained an audit report on 06.05.2015, before filing the Income Tax Return, on 11.09.2015, which was physically submitted on 21.05.2015, to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Although, the assessee acknowledges the oversight of not e- filing the audit report along with the return of income, the assessee eventually e- filed

SORTHIYA AHIR GNATINO UTARO,BHAVNATH, JUNAGADH vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

139(1) of the Act. The assessee’s Rectification Petition was also rejected, as per Section 13(9) of the Act, which prescribes to file the Return within the due date along with the Statement in Form 10. Though CIT(Exemption) denied the condation of filing of Form 10 on the ground that the assessee not invested the funds

SHRI EKTA EDUCATION TRUST,KESHOD vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION, WARD (2), RAJKOT., RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 177/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2022-23) Shri Ekta Education Trust बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Professional Academy Primary Ward-2, Rajkot, New Aayakar /Vs. School, Gokuldham Mangrole Road, Bhawan, Race Course Ring Keshod-362 220 Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts 1570 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D.M.Rindani, A.R. & Ms. Devina Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 12.02.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre/Assessing Officer U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatanam, Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Cpc, Bangalore By Failing To Appreciate That The Actin Of Cpc, Bangalore In Making Adjustments To The Returned Income Of The Appellant By Way Of Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act & In Denying The Benefit Of Sec.11 Of The Appellant Was Not A Case Of Permissible Prima Facie Adjustment.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A)-1, (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”, dated 12.02.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Centralized Processing Centre/Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised

ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

139(5) of the I.T. Act. (f) The A.O. work out the profit of the Eligible Business at Rs. 9,36,73,995/ and 20% thereof amounted to 1,87,34,799/- The AO held that since the deduction claimed u/s 36(10(viii) of the Act cannot exceed 20% of the profit of the Eligible Business, the appellant could

ANKUL CONSTRUCTION CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE ASSIT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CPC BENGLURU/ITO WD-1(2)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 484/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Anukul Constriction Co. Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 901, Aalap-B, Opp. Shastri Ground, Tax, Cpc Bangaluru / Ito Limda Chowk, Ward 1(2)(1), Rajkot – 360001 Aayakar Bhavan, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfa2385E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jay Kathrani, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2025

Section 38 and accordingly not covered u/s 40a(ia). The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the Grounds of Appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessity so arises. 4. Briefly facts of the case that the appellant is Partnership firm and his present jurisdiction of assessment