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

68 taxmann.com 250 (Ahd-Trib). 7. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the assessment, the assessee was not having registration under Section 12AA of the Act which is a condition precedent for granting benefit of Section

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

12A must be fulfilled including of getting registration under Section 12AA of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was not allowed benefit under Section 11 and 12 of the Act and added Rs. 8,34,700/- in the income of assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer further noted that there was a fresh and unsecured loan as evident from

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

12A(a) of Income tax Act granted vide certificate No. SRT/CIT/SIB/110-529-S/87 dated 11.09.1987. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 23.06.2009 declaring nil income. The return of assessee was processed and accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case of assessee was re-opened under section

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

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 the following: “10. We have also gone through the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Cochin Bench, in SNDP Yogam vs. ADIT (Exemption) [2016] 68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin Tribunal) and other

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,420/- during the year. Hence, the entire amount received have been applied during the year. The assessee requested that excess expenditure should be allowed to carry forward set off, during the subsequent year. 5. The Ld CIT(A) observed that alternative ground taken by the assessee is factually correct as the entire amount has been utilized for the construction

CONDOR FOOTWEAR (INDIA) LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Condor Footwear (India) Limited, Vs. The Pcit – 1, Plot No. A-5/3, Road No.10, Main Surat Gate No.2, Hojiwala Industrial Esta, Vanz, Surat, B.O. - 394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc9540N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2025

12A of the Act was cancelled with effect from 01.10.2004 by the CIT(E), Mumbai. Hence, claim of deduction of Rs.25,36,500/- was not allowable. Further, assessee had paid Rs.8,79,551/- received from employees to the provident fund of superannuation fund mentioned in section 2(24)(x) of the Act after the due date. Such amount