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

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

2– of Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC in making huge addition of Rs. 44,68,753/- to the income of assessee by not allowing the amount claimed as application of income & accumulation of income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, even otherwise also the addition

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

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

2 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman period of limitation. The Ld. AR for the assessee invited our attention on the affidavit of the trustee, wherein it was categorically contended that no physical copy or through e- mail of the impugned penalty order was received. The assessee came to know only on13.05.2021 on making/ logging on the portal of ITBA and realised

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2)The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the amount of depreciation ofRs.28,46,631/-which amount to double deduction as 100% of deduction was allowed to the assessee as application of income. 3) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the interest income of Rs.23