← All Phrases

“Section 10(25)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(25)(iii)9 judgments

Judgments citing Section 10(25)(iii)

Nesco Employees Gratuity Fund Trust, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

ITA 159/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(24)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

required to file the appeal as per the income Tax Act. The assessee had made a wrong section in the return since the section 10(25(iii) was not available in the ITR to claim exemption. Further as per the Income tax Act, the assessee claiming the exemption u/s 10

Lord Krishna Bank(Employees) Pension Fund, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Ernakulam

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

ITA 126/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Lord Krishna Bank (Employees) Pension Fund .......... Appellant 2Nd Floor, Veeyem Towers, Palarivattom Ernakulam 682025 [Pan: Aaatl3040K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri R. Lokanathan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 10(25)(iii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Assessment

Tuv India Pvt Ltd Employees Group Superannation Scheme, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 1365/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaltuv India Pvt. Ltd Employees Group Superannuation Scheme, M/S. Kalyaniwall & Mistry Llp, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaatt9836D ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cpc Bengaluru ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule Ld. DR
Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 3

learned Assessing Officer (CPC) erred in denying and learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming denial of the exemption under section 10(25) (iii) of the Act to the Appellant. 2. The learned Assessing Officer (CPC) and learned CIT (Appeals) erred in denying exemption under section 10(25) (iii

Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures Supernnuation Scheme Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 1871/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(25)(i)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234B

appreciating that only wrong return form (TTR-7) was erroneously filed by the appellant but the exemption was rightly claimed under section 10(25)(iii) of the Act. 1.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the contribution received

Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures Supernnuation Scheme Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 1870/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(25)(i)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234B

appreciating that only wrong return form (TTR-7) was erroneously filed by the appellant but the exemption was rightly claimed under section 10(25)(iii) of the Act. 1.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the contribution received

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 204/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

appreciate that in this year Rs 84,00,000/- was earned from approved fund as defined in section 2(6) and under section 10(25)(iii) all income received by such fund is exempt, and therefore, assessment order taxing the interest

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 203/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

appreciate that in this year Rs 84,00,000/- was earned from approved fund as defined in section 2(6) and under section 10(25)(iii) all income received by such fund is exempt, and therefore, assessment order taxing the interest

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 202/RJT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

appreciate that in this year Rs 84,00,000/- was earned from approved fund as defined in section 2(6) and under section 10(25)(iii) all income received by such fund is exempt, and therefore, assessment order taxing the interest

Kandla Trust Port, Supernuation Scheame, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, impugned notice is quashed

ITA 201/RJT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 10(25)(iii)Section 2(6)

appreciate that in this year Rs 84,00,000/- was earned from approved fund as defined in section 2(6) and under section 10(25)(iii) all income received by such fund is exempt, and therefore, assessment order taxing the interest