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

12A and recognition certificate under Section 80G of the Act. For the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed its return of income on 17/10/2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,41,990/- . In the computation of income, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 11/12 of the Act of Rs. 24,69,286/-. The return of income was processed by Central Processing

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

12A and recognition certificate under Section 80G of the Act. For the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed its return of income on 17/10/2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,41,990/- . In the computation of income, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 11/12 of the Act of Rs. 24,69,286/-. The return of income was processed by Central Processing

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

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

12A as well as recognition under Section 80G(5) of the Act. Further, such exemption certificate are existing. The only reason for disallowance of claim of exemption under Section 11 ITA 27/Srt/2023 Navbharat Charitable Trust Vs ITO and 12 of the Act of Rs. 24,69,286/- was for want of Form 10B which was not filed alongwith return

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY MORORJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

delay is not condoned, therefore the issues and grounds on merit are not taken for adjudication.” 5. The assesse is in appeal before this tribunal against the impugned order dated 19.11.2024. ~ 5 ~ ITA 10&11/SRT/2025 Shree Bilimora Vibhag Anavil Mandal 5.1. The AR of the assesse submitted that no opportunity was given to the assessee to explain the case before

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY, MORARJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

delay is not condoned, therefore the issues and grounds on merit are not taken for adjudication.” 5. The assesse is in appeal before this tribunal against the impugned order dated 19.11.2024. ~ 5 ~ ITA 10&11/SRT/2025 Shree Bilimora Vibhag Anavil Mandal 5.1. The AR of the assesse submitted that no opportunity was given to the assessee to explain the case before

JAYSHRI GOPALLAL MAHARAJSHRINI SURAT SRUSTI TRUST,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condone delay in filing Form 10B. 8. In the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer. (Exemption) [2021] 125 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat)/[2021] 278 Taxman 148 (Gujarat)[09-12-2020], the High Court held that where assessee, a public charitable trust registered under section 12A, had substantially satisfied condition for availing benefit of exemption as a trust

AADIVASI SAMPSABHA CHARITABLE TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee/applicant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

2– “1. The appellant request for condonation of delay in filling appeal. The appellate order under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) passed

AADIVASI SAMPSABHA CHARITABLE TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee/applicant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

2– “1. The appellant request for condonation of delay in filling appeal. The appellate order under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) passed

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)

2 might be justified in denying the exemption under section 11 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, which is a public charitable trust for past 30 years which substantially satisfies the conditions for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide

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

condonation of delay is set aside. 10. Now adverting to the merit of the case, we find that in appeal for quantum assessment, the addition on account of disallowance for exemption under section 11 as well as disallowance of expenses was deleted and the appeal of assessee was allowed by this Tribunal in in ITA No.272/SRT/2018 (supra) by passing

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

condone such delay. Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court directed that the order of rectification under section 154 be quashed 7.3 In the case of Jt. CIT (OSD) v. Gujarat Energy Development Agency [2023] 154 taxmann.com 348/202 ITD 733 (Ahd. - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee, a charitable trust, filed audit report in Form No. 10B during assessment proceedings, Assessing

ROTARY SHAISHNIK TABIBI SEVA SAHAYAK MANDAL,VALSAD vs. CIT(EXMEPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 396/Srt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Rotary Shaishnik Tabibi Seav Vs. Cit(Exemption) Sahayak Mandal Room No. 609, Floor No. 6, Ayakar Vai – Bhilad, At Post Sarigam Bhavan (Vejalpur), Prahalad Nagar, Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 Valsad – 396170 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahts6053N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

condoned the delay in filing the appeal by 562 days, and the appeal heard on merit. 9. We hold that the orders dated 18.09.2023 passed by the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, rejecting the assessee’s applications under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the appellant failed to reply the notice, since

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)

section 154 of the Act, the assessee 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

MATRUBHUMI EDUCATION TRUST,CHIKHLI NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Matrubhumi Education Trust, Addl/Jcit(A) Bhubaneshwar, At&Po Hukeri Via Rankuwa, Tal Odisha-751007. Chikhli, Navsari-396560. Vs. Pan No. Aaetm 4713 A Appellant Respondent : Ms. Sanjay S. Kotian, Ar Assessee By : Mr. Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2025

delay in filing of audit report in Form No. 10B. Under the provisions of the Act, the assessee was required to file Form No. 10B at least one ITA No. 351/SRT/2025 2 Matru Bhumi Education Trust Matru Bhumi Education Trust month before the due date prescribed for filing return of income before the due date prescribed for filing return

BAI PIROJBAI MANEKJI PATEL SINGAPOREWALLA ENGLISH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS,SURAT vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law the learned\nCIT (Exemption) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application\nfiled u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act by illegal and improper application of the\nprovisions contained under sub-section (5B) to Section 80G of the Income Tax\nAct

KATARGAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SHEDHOLDERS,SURAT vs. CIT(E), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is also allowed for statistical\npurposes

delay in\nfilling the appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the case on merit.\nITA No.697/SRT/2025 (AY 2025-26):\n6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application for\nregistration/incorporation in Form No.10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The\nCIT(E) issued notices on 06.09.2024 and 25.10.2024. The applicant

THE SORABJEE NUSSERWANJEE PARUCK PARSI POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE,SURAT vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law the learned\nCIT (Exemption) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application\nfiled u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act by illegal and improper application of the\nprovisions contained under sub-section (5B) to Section 80G of the Income Tax\nAct

KALIDAS KURJIBHAI BAVARIYA,BARDOLI, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.390/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Kalidas Kurjibhai Bavariya, Vs. The Ito, 5/B, Tulsi Park, Gandhi Road, Ward-2, Bardoli, Surat - 394601 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aynpb4062A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 3. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that one hundred five (105) days