SHRI RAM EDUCATION & GRAMINVIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTION WARD), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainishri Ram Education & I.T.O., (Exemption Ward) Graminvikas Charitable Trust, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jauagauri Park, Hathikhana, Majura Gate, Dharampur, Surat. Valsad-396050. Pan No. Aalts 324 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6) of the Act. The assessee-trust due to oversight, filed projected balance sheet which has actually been prepaid to submit before the banker for future financial need. There is no case of different balance sheet as on 31/3/2012 as presumed by Assessing Officer. From the balance sheet as on 31/3/2012, filed before the Charity Commissioner

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section of the society. It has further submitted that the return for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 27-9-2014 vide acknowledgement no. 370510010270914 claiming refund of Rs. 1,92,845/-. During the A.Y. 2014-15, it had accumulated an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- and has also utilized it in the subsequent year itself. As the Trust

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section of the society. It has further submitted that the return for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 27-9-2014 vide acknowledgement no. 370510010270914 claiming refund of Rs. 1,92,845/-. During the A.Y. 2014-15, it had accumulated an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- and has also utilized it in the subsequent year itself. As the Trust

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section of the society. It has further submitted that the return for A.Y. 2014-15 was filed on 27-9-2014 vide acknowledgement no. 370510010270914 claiming refund of Rs. 1,92,845/-. During the A.Y. 2014-15, it had accumulated an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- and has also utilized it in the subsequent year itself. As the Trust

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

37(1) of the Act. The AR further submitted that disallowance of cane price and cane development results in taxation of notional, hypothetical and unrealistic income, which is impermissible in law, as only real income can be subjected to tax. 14. Lastly, without prejudice to the preceding submissions, the AR argued that even if the Revenue's stance were hypothetically

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

37(1) of the Act. The AR further submitted that disallowance of cane price and cane development results in taxation of notional, hypothetical and unrealistic income, which is impermissible in law, as only real income can be subjected to tax. 14. Lastly, without prejudice to the preceding submissions, the AR argued that even if the Revenue's stance were hypothetically

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

37(1) of the Act. The AR further submitted that disallowance of cane price and cane development results in taxation of notional, hypothetical and unrealistic income, which is impermissible in law, as only real income can be subjected to tax. 14. Lastly, without prejudice to the preceding submissions, the AR argued that even if the Revenue's stance were hypothetically

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

37(1) of the Act. The AR further submitted that disallowance of cane price and cane development results in taxation of notional, hypothetical and unrealistic income, which is impermissible in law, as only real income can be subjected to tax. 14. Lastly, without prejudice to the preceding submissions, the AR argued that even if the Revenue's stance were hypothetically

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

37(1) of the Act. The AR further submitted that disallowance of cane price and cane development results in taxation of notional, hypothetical and unrealistic income, which is impermissible in law, as only real income can be subjected to tax. 14. Lastly, without prejudice to the preceding submissions, the AR argued that even if the Revenue's stance were hypothetically

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

37(1) of the Act. The AR further submitted that disallowance of cane price and cane development results in taxation of notional, hypothetical and unrealistic income, which is impermissible in law, as only real income can be subjected to tax. 14. Lastly, without prejudice to the preceding submissions, the AR argued that even if the Revenue's stance were hypothetically

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT vs. SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

Charitable Trust Fund, addition on account of denial of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) for Rs.4,02,59,235/- & addition of Rs. 1,57,55,966/- u/s 145A of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld.DR submitted that as regard to ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR - 2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

Charitable Trust Fund, addition on account of denial of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) for Rs.4,02,59,235/- & addition of Rs. 1,57,55,966/- u/s 145A of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld.DR submitted that as regard to ground

LOK BHARTI MANDAL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.212/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Hearing) Lok Bharati Mandal, Vs. The Ito, Bharatia Vidhya Sankul, Opp. Terapanthi (Exemption) Ward, Bhavan, City Light Ropad, Surat. Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatl2524Q Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 04/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

37 (Karnataka), wherein it was held that Where donation received by assessee-trust is kept in deposit account and income earned therefrom is utilized for charitable purposes, assessee is entitled to benefit of exemption under section 11(1

SHRI BHOGILAL CHOTALAL KOTHARI TATHA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri O. P. Meena)

1)(d) of the IT. Act against Corpus donation received. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making disallowance of expenses totaling to Rs. 18,37,542/- incurred during the year towards objects

SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1735 & 1740/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat. At & Post Sayan, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4058F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Khand Mandli Ltd., Surat. N.H. No.8, Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist: Surat, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4817N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. These appeals filed by different assessees for Assessment Year 2008-09, are barred by limitation by 2 days and 5 days respectively. The assessees have moved petitions requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties 1735 & 1740/AHD/2015/AY.2008-09 Kamrej

SHRI KAMREJ VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1735 & 1740/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat. At & Post Sayan, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4058F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Khand Mandli Ltd., Surat. N.H. No.8, Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist: Surat, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4817N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. These appeals filed by different assessees for Assessment Year 2008-09, are barred by limitation by 2 days and 5 days respectively. The assessees have moved petitions requesting the Bench to condone the delay. We have heard both the parties 1735 & 1740/AHD/2015/AY.2008-09 Kamrej