AKHIL KUTCH RABARI SAMAJ SEVA TRUST,BHUJ KUTCH vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Trust v. CIT (E) 160 taxmann.com 276 (Rajkot - Trib.). Wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that Section 80G (5B) does not contravene section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal clarified that the provision under section 80G(58) states that if a charitable

SHREE PARJIYA BRAHMAN ABHYUDAY MANDAL,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Parjiya Brahman Vs. Cit(Exemption) Abhyuday Mandal Ahmedabad Adesarr Rapar, Kutch Rapar, Gujarat 370155 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abeas2267F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

charitable trust/institution created or established after commencement of this Act, if the trust/institution is created or established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. As per Form No. 10AB filed by the assessee, the date of incorporation/Creation/Registration of the trust has been mentioned as 28/04/1977, which is pending prior to commencement of Act. Also

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(1) of the Act, Centralized Processing Centre

ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF INDUBHAI PAREKH SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE - RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 940/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (N.A.) (Hybrid Hearing) Alumni Associa"On Of Indubhai Parekh School Vs. The Cit(Exemp"On), Ahmedabad Of Architecture, Rajkot- 360005, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahta9691E (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable activities, hence entitled to grant registration u/s. 12A. Hence it is submitted before us that if assessee given an opportunity to furnish all requisite documents before the CIT(E), so as to enable him to grant the necessary registration u/s. 12A of the Act. That the assessee trust could not comply with the notice issued

CHINTAN DWARKADAS CHOTAI,JUNAGADH vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1), RKT, RAJKOT

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

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

160/-. The flagged information indicated that the assessee had claimed donation u/s 80G of the Act of Rs.2,50,000/-(eligible amount of donation @ 50% was Rs. 1,12,482/-) to the charitable trust, i.e. All India Education Charitable Trust during the assessment year 2019-20. Accordingly, the AO was concluded that the assessee had obtained accommodation entry

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

160 taxmann.com 474 (Bombay)  Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 4 (Guj.)  Sunbarg Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 16 (Guj.)  Mahadev Trading Co. v. ITO [2012] 18 taxmann.com 353 (Ahd.) b) The notices u/s 148A(b) and 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act are in violation of Section

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

160 taxmann.com 474 (Bombay)  Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 4 (Guj.)  Sunbarg Tradelink (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 16 (Guj.)  Mahadev Trading Co. v. ITO [2012] 18 taxmann.com 353 (Ahd.) b) The notices u/s 148A(b) and 148 of the Act and the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act are in violation of Section

ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUJ-W-201-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.731/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing)

160/- against the assessee. 6. During the course of hearing, the Learned Appellant Representative (hereinafter to as the “Ld. AR”) of the assessee submitted that, we are consulting Engineers Association having is earned by way of interest income fee for consulting charges and argument of seminar etc. The assessee filed ITR and paid taxes on normal rate. Since our association