← All Phrases

“Section 10(25)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(25)(i)3 judgments

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 ... appellant trust was exempt under section 10(25)(i) read with Rule 2 of Part B of Fourth Schedule of the Act, as claimed by the appellant. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid adjustment made by the assessing officer/CPC

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 ... appellant trust was exempt under section 10(25)(i) read with Rule 2 of Part B of Fourth Schedule of the Act, as claimed by the appellant. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid adjustment made by the assessing officer/CPC

ACIT(E), CIRCLE- 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIAN AIRLINES EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the ld AO is dismissed

ITA 1687/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit(E), Vs. Indian Airlines Employees Circle-1(1), Provident Fund, 113, Airlines New Delhi House, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road, Near Sansad Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaati2893R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajhesh Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Najmi, CIT DR
Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(i)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 58B(1)

return of income on 26.03.2015. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the ld AO questioned the exemption under section 10(25) of the Act. According to the ld AO the assessee has repayable withdrawal of Rs. 13.31crores, delayed payments of Rs. 8.25 crores and interest ... paid for prior period of Rs. 5.53 crores, totaling all to Rs. 21.62 crores which are not covered by provisions of section 10(25)(i) of the Act as only interest of government securities and public securities is exempt. Therefore, the above sum of Rs. 21.62 was disallowed