INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXAMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. SHREE SAIBABA SATSANG MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Charitable Trust v. ITO (1975) 98 ITR 557 (All.) and the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner v. BalUtkarsh Society (1979) 119 ITR 137 (Guj.) and the decision of the Tribunal Delhi Bench 'A' in the case of Dharam Partishithanam (supra) and the decision of Tribunal in the case of St. Ann's Home

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.272/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, V The Income Tax Officer, Agiary Street, Malesar, Navsari S Exemption Ward, Surat. Taluka, Navsari – 396 445. . [Pan: Aaatn 6124 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Vaishav – Cit - Dr

Trusts and Institutions. It has supplied the aforesaid omission in the section and has thereby made the provision of the section workable, providing a reasonable interpretation to it by providing the benefit mandated by it. It is, thus a curative proviso, which is but merely declaratory of the previous law. It has, by removal of the hardship, rendered the procedure

ACIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Asst. Commissioner Of The Surat District Cricket Income-Tax (Exemptions), Association, Lalbhai Vs Circle-2, 6Th Floor, Room Contractor Stadium, Surat No.607, Aayakar Bhavan Dumas Road, Vesu, (Vejalpur), Prahlad Nagar Surat-395007 Road, Nr. Sachin Tower, Pan : Aaatt 6114 A Satellite,Ahmedabad-380 015 Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

trust and its main object is to encourage the sports and various games 3 The Surat Dist. Cricket Association specially Cricket at State as well as National level. During the year, assessee has shown gross receipt of Rs.2.30 crores and claimed application of income for its objects of Rs.3.90 crores. The Assessing Officer noted that on perusal of income

PRAJAPATI SAMAJ MAOLI BAZAR,NA vs. ARIVS.ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Prajapati Samaj Maroli Bazar, Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant C/O-Ganpatbhai Mistri, At Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mahuvar, Post- Maroli Bazar, Tax/Income Tax Officer, Taluka: Jalalpore, National E-Assessment Centre, Navsari-396436. (Gujarat) Delhi. Pan No. Aabtp 2604 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

charitable trust, engaged in the service of poor for imparting education and medical relief. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 14/09/2018 declaring total income at NIL. In the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) to the extent

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navsari Malesar Behdin Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Room Anjuman, Agary Street, Vs No.105, 1St Floor, Anavil Malesar, Business Centre, Aayakar Navsari-396445 Bhavan, Adajan Hazira Road, Pan No. Aaatn 6124 C Adajan, Surat-395007 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

trust were contesting all the 7 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman proceedings in quantum assessment and ultimately succeeded. Therefore, there was no justification in dismissing the application of condonation of delay when the assessee has filed affidavit of one of the trustee deposing on oath that they never came to know about passing the impugned penalty order prior