← All Phrases

“Section 10(24)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(24)11 judgments

SHRI DANDI SEWA ASHRAM,ONKARESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , BHOPAL

In the result the \"Impugned order\" is set aside as and by\nway of remand back to the file of the Ld

ITA 560/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 10(24)Section 11Section 124Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

n567739291300318 and on page 1 under caption “section\nunder which exemption claimed if any (see instruction\nPara 11e)" section 10(24) is mentioned /claimed for AY 17-\n18. The Ld. AR submitted it was claimed wrongly. Section\n10(24) was not applicable as section was claimed. Basis page ... apart\nfor application not exceeding 15% was Rs. 2,31,521/-. It was\nstated that on Page 5 of ITR-7 section 10(24) was not claimed.\n3.3 The Ld. AR then submitted that the Ld. AO finding in the\n“impugned order u/s 154” is wrong and incorrect

DADASAHEB TIRODKAR SHAIKSHANIK ACADEMY,SINDHUDURG vs. ITOD EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1016/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 10(21)Section 10(228)Section 10(24)Section 10(46)Section 10(47)Section 11Section 11(3)Section 13ASection 13B

nExemption under section 10(23D)\n9e\nf\nExemption under section 10(23DA)\n9f\ng\nExemption under section 10(23FB)\n9g\nh\nExemption under section 10(24)\n9h\ni\nExemption under section 10(46)\n9i\nExemption under section 10(47)\n9j\n10\nAmount eligible for exemption under any clause, other than

NESCO EMPLOYEES GRATUITY FUND TRUST,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

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

ITA 159/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 10(24)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

submissions. To begin\nwith, there is no dispute that the assessee filed the ITR claiming\nexemption under an incorrect section i.e. section 10(24). Therefore,\nthere is no apparent mistake in disallowing the claim u/s 143(1) of\nthe Act. Of course, the CPC ought to have provided the assessee

WESTERN INDIA CINEMATOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, in view of decision in ITA No

ITA 4702/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Javeri, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(24)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

surplus income of Rs.21,15,877/- and has availed exemption u/s 10(24) of the Act. The Assessee is covered only by section 10(24) of the Act and therefore partial exemption only”. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner on various grounds

WESTERN INDIA CINEMATOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, in view of decision in ITA No

ITA 4701/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Javeri, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(24)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

surplus income of Rs.21,15,877/- and has availed exemption u/s 10(24) of the Act. The Assessee is covered only by section 10(24) of the Act and therefore partial exemption only”. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner on various grounds

WESTERN INDIA CINEMATOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, in view of decision in ITA No

ITA 4700/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Javeri, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(24)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

surplus income of Rs.21,15,877/- and has availed exemption u/s 10(24) of the Act. The Assessee is covered only by section 10(24) of the Act and therefore partial exemption only”. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner on various grounds

WESTERN INDIA CINEMATOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI I.T.O, WARD 25(1)(5) , MUMBAI

In the result, in view of decision in ITA No

ITA 4699/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Javeri, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(24)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

surplus income of Rs.21,15,877/- and has availed exemption u/s 10(24) of the Act. The Assessee is covered only by section 10(24) of the Act and therefore partial exemption only”. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner on various grounds

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 986/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(24)Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(6)Section 2(31)Section 201(1)

income of the Truck Operator Union is not exempt under section 12A or under section 10(24) of the Act and even provision of Section 194C(6) are not applicable as the Truck Operator Union uses 892 trucks of its members way beyond the prescribed limit of ten trucks

ITO-26-(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHARADA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1417/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey&F Shri Amarjit Singhito-26(2)(1), Vs. M/S Sharada Enterprises, Room No. 127, 1 St Floor, 84-A, Mittal Court, 224, G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan, Nariman Point, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aamts9429H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(23)Section 5

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1417/Mum/2023 & C.O 66/Mum/2023 ITO-26(2)(1) Vs. M/s Sharada Enterprises IN THE INCOME

SHRI SAILESHBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI HIRPARA,JETPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 59/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Saileshbhai The Deputy बनाम/ Shambhubhai Hirpara Commissioner Of Income Vs. C/O. Nishan Export, Tax Dhoraji Road, Jetpur, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Rajkot - 360370 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeph3006R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, ""यथ" क" ओर से / Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 23/08/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed By The Dc/Ac, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: None
Section 1Section 10(24)Section 144Section 14A

profit and therefore what the assessee got by way of profits though the same is not taxable in his hands by virtue of section 10(24), the same does form part of the total income under the prevision of the Act namely in the case of the partnership firm

SCREEN WRITERS ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -25, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3686/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3686/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Ld. DR by
Section 10(24)Section 143(2)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A