NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

charitable trust, is a public body and, accordingly, there is no question of its beneficiaries being individual members, whose shares have therefore to be defined. He failed to appreciate the facts, the law involved as well as the CBDT's Circular No.320 dated 11/01/1982 that is binding on the department. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred on facts

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return

THE SIRUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

rectification under section 154 be quashed 7.3 In the case of JCIT v. Gujarat Energy Development Agency154 taxmann.com 348 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee, a charitable trust, filed audit report in Form No. 10B during assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer could not have denied exemption under section 11 on ground that audit report was not e-filed along

JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

charitable purposes since CPC did not find the audit report in Form 10B. Subsequently, the assessee filed rectification u/s 154 which was also rejected. It was also the contention of Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A) did not provided proper opportunity of hearing since only two notices were issued fixing the date of hearing in short span of 10 days

DCIT EXMP CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE PMT BLDG vs. ASHIRWAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

u/s 154 dated 01.02.2017 has been passed by the Ld. AO and the contention of the appellant has been accepted by passing necessary rectification order and deleting the double addition of Rs.2,78,00,000/-thereof. In view of the same, the ground of appeal no.6 is allowed. Ground No.7:- This ground is general in nature and does not require

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXMP CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE PMT BLDG vs. ASHRIWAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

u/s 154 dated 01.02.2017 has been passed by the Ld. AO and the contention of the appellant has been accepted by passing necessary rectification order and deleting the double addition of Rs.2,78,00,000/-thereof. In view of the same, the ground of appeal no.6 is allowed. Ground No.7:- This ground is general in nature and does not require

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPTHALMOLOGY, PUNE

In the result both revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.423/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of National Institute Of Income Tax (Exemption), Opthalmology, Pune Vs. 1187/30 Shivajinagar, Off Ghole Road, Near Phule Museum, Pune-411005 Pan-Aaatn2580Q

charitable trust engaged in medical activities and duly registered u/s 10(23C)(via) of the Act and also u/s 12A of the Act. Return of Income for A.Y. 2017-18 e-filed on 12.10.2017 declaring NIL income after claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) of the Act at Rs. 25,19,72,895/- This return was further revised

ASHIRWAD CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE, PUNE

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

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

charitable as per the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act. On appeal against such assessment order passed 2 ITA No.190/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 06-12-2023 allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee has to be given the benefit of section

ADHAR PROJECT WELFARE SOCIETY,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

charitable trust and therefore denying exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act. The assessee filed rectification application before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) which was rejected by the JAO holding it to be the mistake beyond the purview of section 154

ADHERE FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. AO, EXEMPTION WARD , PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.954/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

rectification applications u/s 154 on 04.01.2023 before the CPC, which has been rejected by the CPC and passed the order on 04.01.2023. The appellant has challenged the order u/s 154 in the present appeal. 4.2 In this case, the appellant could have filed an appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) as per the provisions of the Act. However

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE vs. POONA PANJARPOLE TRUST, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

rectification petition u/s 154 was filed on 08.03.2017 stating that the intimation was issued without granting exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The said petition u/s 154 came to be rejected vide order dated 28.06.2021 on the ground that the assessee trust had not filed Form No.10B. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN INSTITUTE OF POLYTECHNIC,BEED vs. ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA.No.2049/PUN

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2637/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

rectification applications u/s. 154 of the Act stating that in view of settled judicial precedence CPC has wrongly levied the late fee u/s. 234E, but failed to get any relief. Thereafter, the assessee filed separate appeals against the respective orders u/s. 154 of the Act against levy of late fee u/s. 234E of the Act for belatedly filing quarterly

SHRI SHIVAJI COLLEGE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA.No.2049/PUN

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2637/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

rectification applications u/s. 154 of the Act stating that in view of settled judicial precedence CPC has wrongly levied the late fee u/s. 234E, but failed to get any relief. Thereafter, the assessee filed separate appeals against the respective orders u/s. 154 of the Act against levy of late fee u/s. 234E of the Act for belatedly filing quarterly