SHREE VIMALJIN RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE TRUST,VAPI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 239/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Vimaljin Religious Charitable Trust, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, 102, Shantinath Apartment, Nehru Street, Bangaluru. Vapi-396191. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalts6046F

Charitable Trust 19. The ld Counsel also argued before us that if exemption is not granted under section 11 of the Act, then in that event the income of the assessee-trust should be computed on commercial principles bases, that is net profit should be taxable. We find merit in the contention of the assessee and noted that net profit

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

charitable trust. 29. We should look into the position of law as regards the subject matter of this writ-application : In Artist Tree (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 152/[2015] 228 Taxman 108/[2014] 369 ITR 691 (Bom.). The relevant paragraphs 11 to 14 and 23 of the said judgment are quoted below for ready reference

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

charitable trust. 29. We should look into the position of law as regards the subject matter of this writ-application : In Artist Tree (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 152/[2015] 228 Taxman 108/[2014] 369 ITR 691 (Bom.). The relevant paragraphs 11 to 14 and 23 of the said judgment are quoted below for ready reference

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

charitable trust. 29. We should look into the position of law as regards the subject matter of this writ-application : In Artist Tree (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 152/[2015] 228 Taxman 108/[2014] 369 ITR 691 (Bom.). The relevant paragraphs 11 to 14 and 23 of the said judgment are quoted below for ready reference

SHRI VIDHYASAGAR SANT NIVAS TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(E) and direct him to grant registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and also u/s. 80G(5) of the Act to the assessee Trust. 7. Per contra Ld.CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue, supported the order passed by Ld. CIT(E) and requested to confirm the same. 8. We have heard rival

SHRI VIDHYASAGAR SANT NIVAS TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(E) and direct him to grant registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and also u/s. 80G(5) of the Act to the assessee Trust. 7. Per contra Ld.CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue, supported the order passed by Ld. CIT(E) and requested to confirm the same. 8. We have heard rival

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

HRIDAYKUNJ FOUNDATION TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Charitable in nature. The trust has just commenced in the year 2022 under such initial year, it is inappropriate to reject the registration application is misuse of power. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the trust may be granted registration so that it will get approval U/s. 80G(5) also. (3) The learned CIT (Exemption) Ahmedabad

HRIDAYKUNJ FOUNDATION TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Charitable in nature. The trust has just commenced in the year 2022 under such initial year, it is inappropriate to reject the registration application is misuse of power. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the trust may be granted registration so that it will get approval U/s. 80G(5) also. (3) The learned CIT (Exemption) Ahmedabad

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

charitable work. The assessee-trust has obtained contract and executed the contract obtained from Govt. of Gujarat which is a business venture like any other contractor. 10.2 Further, the assessee-trust has incurred loss of Rs.55,73,916/- in the irrigation contract work and set

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

charitable work. The assessee-trust has obtained contract and executed the contract obtained from Govt. of Gujarat which is a business venture like any other contractor. 10.2 Further, the assessee-trust has incurred loss of Rs.55,73,916/- in the irrigation contract work and set

HALIMA ADAMJI MEDICAL AND EDUCATION CHARITABLE TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT, (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2025-26 (Hybrid Hearing) Halima Adamji Medical & Cit (Exemption), Ahmedabad बनाम/ Education Charitable Trust Vs. Office No. 1, Ground Floor, Halima Apartment, New Rander Road, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaath 6553 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"वक" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

loss account and trust deed which had not been considered ITA No.764/Srt/2025 A.Y 25-26 Halima Adamji Medical & Education Charitable Trust by the Ld. CIT(E). It is, thus, clear that the order has been passed without hearing the appellant effectively. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to set

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

losses and unabsorbed depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

losses and unabsorbed depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

losses and unabsorbed depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

losses and unabsorbed depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

losses and unabsorbed depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

losses and unabsorbed depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated