ADHYAKSHYA LOK MELA AMLIKARAN SAMMITTEE,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, RAJKOT

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy, आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 424 & 425/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Adhyakshya Lok Mela Amlikaran Ito Sammittee Vs. Ward-1(2), A.D. Vyas & Co., Kotecha Nagar Rajkot Main Road, Opp. Kotecha Girls High School, Rajkot-360001 Pan: Aabaa0922F Assessee By : Shri D. M. Rindani, A.R Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot Dated 24/03/2014 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. First, We Take Up Ita 424/Rjt/2018, An Appeal By The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground No 1 Order Of The Learned Cit 1 Rajkot Reopening The Assessment U/S 263 Is Totally Bad On Facts As Well On Law. Learned Cit Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Is Already Assessed U/S 143(3) By Ito 1(2) Rajkot.

disallow the Expenses of Rs 155800/. So even if Rs 155800/ is added to the total income of the assessee, the same is allowable under section 12AA as per the new inserted provision. So addition made is totally in disregard with the proviso to section 12A(2

SHRI RAJKOT VISHASHRIMALI JAIN SAMAJ ,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

2) of the Act. Further, since the delay in filing appeal has been condoned by CIT(Exemption), no question of invoking section 12A(b) arises. In the alternative, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act do not encompass within its scope disallowance

LATE SHANTABEN CHANDRASHANKAR VYAS CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CPC),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.25/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2018-2019 वष"

12A(2) of the Act it was entitled to claim such benefit exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. The learned CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee confirmed the disallowance

SHREE MANGROL VANIK DASHA SHRIMALI GNATI SHAPUR DARWAJA,MANGROAL-362225 vs. THE ITO (EXMPTION) WARD-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the order passed by Ld

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

12A of the Act and offered tax at normal rate as applicable to individual/non-specific trust. The assessee did not claim any deduction under section 11 of the Act. Therefore, if the AO wanted to disallow all the expenses claimed by the assessee, then the proper procedure was to issue notice under section 143(2

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

section 10(23C) (iiiab) and 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The appellant has, however, claimed exemption u/s.11 of the Act where the appellant filed return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that it was not liable to file return is incorrect. The Assessing Officer stated that during

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

section 10(23C) (iiiab) and 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The appellant has, however, claimed exemption u/s.11 of the Act where the appellant filed return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that it was not liable to file return is incorrect. The Assessing Officer stated that during

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)

2. Incorrect Application of MMR: 6 ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Please see our arguments above. The application of the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) to the appellant's income by the CPC is thus erroneous. The appellant's income should have been taxed at normal rates applicable to an Association of Persons (AOP) since it qualifies under the mutuality principle

SATVARA GNATI SAMAJ SEVA MANDAL,MORBI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), RAJKOT

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

disallowing of 4 Rs. 247127/- boing\nclaim of option allowed u/s 11(1) as deemed application of income.\n5. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s\n2704.\n6.That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, DLEETE, 6 change and / OR\nraise further grounds of appeal during the pendency of these proceedings.\n3. Brief facts