← All Phrases

“Section 10(23)(iiiad)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)22 judgments

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

AMAR SINGH SMARAK SHIKHAN PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,FAIZABAD vs. CPC BANGALORE (ITO-1) , FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 143(1)

assessee is a society registered under the Societies Act, 1860. The assessee filed its return of income on 31st March 2021 under section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act declaring total receipt of Rs.34,52,680/-. The return of the assessee was processed by CPC, Bengaluru and order was passed

SREE NARAYANA PUBLIC,KARUNAGAPALLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 238/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Narayana Public School .......... Appellant Pavumba, P.O., Karunagapplly 690574 [Pan: Aants1510Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Alappuzha .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Narayana

VEETRAAG VANI TRUST REGSD, ,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, , GWALIOR

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 31/AGR/2023[ 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.31/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Veetraag Vani Trust Income-Tax Officer (Exemption) बनाम/ Sahil Sagar Chauraha Ward- Gwalior. Near Arihant Public School, Vs. Tikamgarh (Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-6832-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 28-12-2022 In The Matter Of An Rectification Order Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 154 On 18-12-2020. It Emerges That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income At Rs.20.79 Lacs Which Was Accepted U/S 143(1). The Assessee Revised Return Of Income On 28-02- 2016 Claiming Exemption U/S 10(23)(Iiiad) Followed By Rectification Which Was Rejected On The Ground That There Was No Mistake Apparent From Record. The Rectification Order Was Under Challenge Before Ld. Cit(A). In Para 9.7 Of Impugned Order, Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Rectification Order On The Ground That The Fresh Claim So Made By The Assessee Was Beyond

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE

KAILASWASI NARAYAN ALIAS BAPU PATIL SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 620/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Supriya PowarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 68

matter. [Para 5.3.3 and 5.3.4, page 10-11 of the order of Commissioner (Appeals)] 2. Claim for benefit of exemption of Section 10(23)(iiiad) of Income Tax Act 1961, was rejected by the commissioner appeals for the following reasons: i. Not claimed exemption before AO and in the return

HAMID MEMORIAL WELFARE SOCIETY,SAHASPUR, BIJNOR vs. NFAC DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

ITA 9/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrahamid Memorial Welfare V. Nfac, Delhi Society New Delhi. Sahaspur, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh-246745. Pan:Aaaah4849K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hamid Memorial Welfare

SHREE SWAMI SEVA PRAKASHAN,NASHIK vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 1152/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Swami Seva Prakashan, Vs. National Faceless 304/3 Bnd Government Rest Assessment Centre, Delhi. House Opp A. B. Shri Swami Samarth Gurupeeth, Ring Road, Trimbakeshwar, Nashik- 422212. Pan : Aakts2192K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri B. S. Rajpurohit : Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income After Claiming

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

BHAGWATI EDUCATION SOCIETY,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

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

ITA 429/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kartik Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 10(23)(iiid)Section 143(2)Section 144

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “एस.एम.सी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, “SMC

THE NIMAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KHANDWA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 The Nimar Educational Cit(Exemption) , Society, Bhopal बनाम/ Harsud Road, Civil Lines, East Nimar, Vs. Khandwa (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabtt1409K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

VIDYA SAMITI ARYA SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 885/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 10Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 249(4)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l- lhrky{eh

VIDYA SAMITI ARYA SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 10Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 249(4)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l- lhrky{eh

DIKSHA MANIJARI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2661/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

allowed the deduction to the assessee by observing as under: “Less: Relief allowed by Ld. CIT(A)-25, Kol in terms of section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act for the Asstt. Yr. 2015-16. Considering the order of Ld. CIT(A)-25, Koi addition made by A.O. CPC, Bangalore

BHAAVICK SOCIETY ,HARYANA PANCHKULA vs. CIT(A)NFAC , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 1586/DEL/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyita Nos. 1582 To 1586/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17

Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 147Section 148Section 194J

assessment years under dispute, the assessee filed its returns of income in regular course declaring nil income after claiming exemption under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Income-Tax Act,1961. While verifying the returns of income filed by the assessee with reference to Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer observed ... 194J of the Act. Thus, from the nature of receipts, the Assessing Officer concluded that they are legal/professional receipts, hence, not covered under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act. Thus, he formed an opinion that surplus income of various amounts claimed to be exempt under Section 10(23)(iiiad

BHAAVICK SOCIETY ,HARYANA PANCHKULA vs. CIT(A)NFAC , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 1585/DEL/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyita Nos. 1582 To 1586/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17

Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 147Section 148Section 194J

assessment years under dispute, the assessee filed its returns of income in regular course declaring nil income after claiming exemption under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Income-Tax Act,1961. While verifying the returns of income filed by the assessee with reference to Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer observed ... 194J of the Act. Thus, from the nature of receipts, the Assessing Officer concluded that they are legal/professional receipts, hence, not covered under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act. Thus, he formed an opinion that surplus income of various amounts claimed to be exempt under Section 10(23)(iiiad

BHAAVICK SOCIETY ,HARYANA PANCHKULA vs. CIT(A)NFAC , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 1584/DEL/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyita Nos. 1582 To 1586/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17

Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 147Section 148Section 194J

assessment years under dispute, the assessee filed its returns of income in regular course declaring nil income after claiming exemption under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Income-Tax Act,1961. While verifying the returns of income filed by the assessee with reference to Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer observed ... 194J of the Act. Thus, from the nature of receipts, the Assessing Officer concluded that they are legal/professional receipts, hence, not covered under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act. Thus, he formed an opinion that surplus income of various amounts claimed to be exempt under Section 10(23)(iiiad

BHAAVICK SOCIETY ,HARYANA PANCHKULA vs. CIT(A)NFAC , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 1583/DEL/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyita Nos. 1582 To 1586/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17

Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 147Section 148Section 194J

assessment years under dispute, the assessee filed its returns of income in regular course declaring nil income after claiming exemption under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Income-Tax Act,1961. While verifying the returns of income filed by the assessee with reference to Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer observed ... 194J of the Act. Thus, from the nature of receipts, the Assessing Officer concluded that they are legal/professional receipts, hence, not covered under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act. Thus, he formed an opinion that surplus income of various amounts claimed to be exempt under Section 10(23)(iiiad

BHAAVICK SOCIETY ,HARYANA PANCHKULA vs. CIT(A)NFAC , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated

ITA 1582/DEL/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyita Nos. 1582 To 1586/Del/2021 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17

Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 147Section 148Section 194J

assessment years under dispute, the assessee filed its returns of income in regular course declaring nil income after claiming exemption under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Income-Tax Act,1961. While verifying the returns of income filed by the assessee with reference to Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer observed ... 194J of the Act. Thus, from the nature of receipts, the Assessing Officer concluded that they are legal/professional receipts, hence, not covered under Section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act. Thus, he formed an opinion that surplus income of various amounts claimed to be exempt under Section 10(23)(iiiad

LAXMI MEGHAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KANHANGAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, KANNUR, KANNUR

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

ITA 656/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Laxmi Meghan Educational Trust, Ito (Exemptions), Vs. Kmc W1/1504, Surgicare Centre & Hospital, Kannur – 670 006. Kasargode District, Kerala. Pan :Aaatl8244M Assessee Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Anil D Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

purpose of Education and that the receipts for the year under consideration is less than Rs.1 crore for the purpose of section 10(23)(iiiad) of the Act. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is an Educational Trust running an educational institution i.e., a nursing college and as such

M/S CHOUHAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

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

ITA 193/IND/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Mar 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Chouhan Education Acit 1(1) Society Bhopal Vs. E-8, Trilanga, Shahpura, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatc 551 Q Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2023

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 11Section 12ASection 148

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

SHRAMIK MAHILA MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. LD INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) , THANE

ITA 447/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2