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

1 SC/165 Taxman 533(2008). The Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that conjoint reading of section 11,12 & 12A makes it clear that registration under section 12A is a condition precedent for availing benefit under section 11&12. Similar view was taken by Chennai Tribunal in Veeraval Trust Vs ITO (2021) 129 taxmann.com 358 (Chennai-Trib

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

1)(c) of the Act. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has neither verified the facts pleaded by the assessee in his application of condonation of delay nor sought comment of assessing officer nor he verified the fact from e-mail of assessing officer, whether the impugned order was sent on registered e-mail or not. Thus, in absence

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

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

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