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

263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

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

263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

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

263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

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

263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

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

263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

charitable trust and its related concerns are excessive and lack commercial prudence, the trust forfeits exemption under Section 11. He further noted that in the case of M/s Agrabh also 100% of the revenue is received from the assessee only. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has passed the order without scrutinizing the commercial viability, necessity and reasonableness

SHRI GANESH SERVA SEVA SANGHA SHRIPUR,SOLAPUR vs. CIT(E), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

revised is invalid and bad in law and therefore the order u/s 263 does not survive 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case theOrder u/s 263 passed by the Id. Pr. CIT is bad in law in as much as the same is not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

SHRI MULTANCHAND BORA TRUST,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE- AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1312/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, V The Assistant/Deputy 132B/2A, Ganeshkhind Road, S. Commissioner Of Income Pune – 411007. Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad. Pan: Aafts3329F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrenik Gandhi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune At Nashik Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 30.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Cit (Exemption) Seriously Erred On The Facts & Law, In Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section

u/s 263 are correct. It is essential for the 7 ITA No.1312/PUN/2025 [A] Assessee to prove by documentary evidence that the Trusts to whom Assessee has given donations were engaged in Charitable Activities. We derive strength from the Order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 9.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

u/s 263 of the Act and remitting the impugned issue back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment thereon. In support of his arguments, the Ld. AR filed a legal compilation comprising of the following decisions : i. Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (1966) 62 ITR 506 (Cal.); 13 ITA No.945/PUN/2024

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

Revision proceedings u/s 263 of\nthe Act that, the claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act made by it\nincluded the expenses of CSR. It is also seen that the entire claim of deduction\nunder section 80G of the Act of Rs.8,10,85,470/- has been allowed by the JAO by\naccepting the summary submission

USHA K JOLLY CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION), , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.174/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Usha K. Jolly Charitable Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune. Trust, 23, Jolly Villa, Bund Garden Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaatu1384R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [‘The Cit (Exemption)’] Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961, Since Issues

charitable trust registered under the provisions of section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The Return of Income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 23.11.2011 declaring Rs.Nil income. Subsequently, on receipt of the information that the appellant trust made a cash deposit of Rs.1,31,99,95,101/-, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment

SHRI UPASANI KANYAKUMARI SANSTHAN,RAHATA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act. For calling of the record and examination, the learned Commissioner was not required to show any reason. It is a part of his administrative control to call

P Y C HINDU GYMKHANA,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act. For calling of the record and examination, the learned Commissioner was not required to show any reason. It is a part of his administrative control to call

SHRI TRIMBAKESHWAR DE vs. THAN TRUST,NASHIKVS.CIT (EXEMPTION) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1051/Pun/2024

u/s 263. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has laid down following ratio with regard to provisions of section 263 of the Act: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed