STAR EDUCATION TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.539/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) The Star Education Trust, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 9A, Ratnanilam Apartment, Piplod, Ahmedabad. Surat-395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts2856F

loss account of the assessee trust it is clearly established that assessee trust is engaged in the educational activities and there is nominal profit which are earned by the assessee while conducting these charitable activities. The assessee-trust does not have profit motive, the small profit generated while carrying out charitable activities, does not mean that assessee is engaged

SHREE SUIGAM KHODADHOR PANJARA POLE,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

charitable trust registered under section 12A, had substantially satisfied condition for availing benefit of exemption as a trust, it could not be denied exemption merely on bar of limitation in furnishing audit report in Form no. 10B. 7.5 In the case of CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries [1993] 201 ITR 325 (Guj.), the High Court held that where

SOUTHERN GUJARAT CHAMBER TRADE & INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ()

Loss Account.  Copy of Ledger Account for the period 01-04-2010 to 31- 03-2011 of state Government Grant, Interest, & Share from Sar Infracon Private limited.  Note on activities and objects of the Trust  Copy of Industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Scheme declared by the Central Government 9 Assessment Year.2011-12 Southern Gujarat Chamber Trade & Industry Development Centre  Copy of Registration Certificate

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-SURAT, SURAT vs. ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

carrying out the work contract obtained from the Govt. after tendering for the same. This clearly shows that the activity undertaken by the assessee- trust is not an Incidental Business, the profits of which can be exempt, whereas in this case the receipts are from civil contracts that cannot be exempt as the business is not incidental to the attainment

ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL,SURAT vs. CIT EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

carrying out the work contract obtained from the Govt. after tendering for the same. This clearly shows that the activity undertaken by the assessee- trust is not an Incidental Business, the profits of which can be exempt, whereas in this case the receipts are from civil contracts that cannot be exempt as the business is not incidental to the attainment

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE., NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated

SHRI MODH PATNI GHANCHI GNATI PUNCH TRUST,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Modh Patni Ghanchi Gnati Income Tax Officer, Punch Trust, Vs. Ward-2(3)(6), Bahulbaug, Prichhadi Road, Surat Haripura, Surat-395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts 2898 D (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent)

carried the matter in appeal before ld CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, because the assessee did not appear before ld CIT(A). 4. Against the order of ld CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal and prayer of the assessee before this Tribunal is that delay in filing the Form-10B before

SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

carried the mater in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. Shri Rasesh Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that on the part of the assessee there is an unintentional mistake