ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD, SURAT vs. GUJARAT HIRA BOURSE, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

trust ( A section 25 company, as per old Companies Act, 1956), is charitable institution or not. We note that in the instant case the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 28.03.2013 determining total income at Rs.3,54

ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. GUJARAT HIRA BOURSE, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

trust ( A section 25 company, as per old Companies Act, 1956), is charitable institution or not. We note that in the instant case the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 28.03.2013 determining total income at Rs.3,54

S M K R VASHI HIGH SCHOOL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.515/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Physical Court Hearing) S.M.K.R Vashi High School Income Tax Officer-Exemption Ward, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Umbhrat Road Maroli Bazar, Vs. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Jalalpore Navsari-396436 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs 0980 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

trust under section 12A of the Act and engaged in charitable activities for over 40 years. In the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 assessee declared total income at Rs.13,54

SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T. R Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.647/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Shri Sanjaykumar Tikamchand Bucha, Vs. Acit, 521, Goodluck Market, Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Surat, Gujarat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqpb9320F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit -Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2025

Charitable Trust, (2022) 144 taxmann.com 54 (Mad.), (iii) Kantilal C. Shah vs. ACIT, (2011) 14 taxmann.com 108 (Ahd – Trib.), (iv) PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia, (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi), (v) Thiru S. Shyam Kumar vs. ACIT, (2018) 99 taxmann.com 39 (Mad.) and (vi) Ravindra Kumar Verma vs. CIT, (2013) 30 taxmann.com 367 (All.). 4.1 With regard to the claim

KETAN N. SHAH (HUF) ,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital & Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [Pan: Aahhk 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hardikvora– Ar िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [“Cit(A)” ], Valsad, State Of Gujarat,Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.This Appeal Was Initially Adjudicated Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. However, The Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 02.01.2020 In Ma No.59/Srt/2019, Thus, In The Aforesaid Background, The Appeal Was Heard Afresh.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [PAN: AAHHK 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri HardikVora– AR िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date of hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement on: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICAL MEMEBR: 1. This

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

charitable trust. (vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by it to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors. Besides nowhere it has been claimed that at the time of supply of sugarcane by the farmers to the appellant, any agreement or contract 25 for payment of price higher than