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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, ABCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

charitable trust cannot be denied benefit of section 11 solely for not filing audit report in Form No.10B, as it is only a procedural requirement. 22. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors. (supra) is concerned, we are of considered opinion that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, APCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

charitable trust cannot be denied benefit of section 11 solely for not filing audit report in Form No.10B, as it is only a procedural requirement. 22. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors. (supra) is concerned, we are of considered opinion that

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

29 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vishwasta Nidhi 13(2)/13(l)(c), which were also confirmed by the Hon’ble Courts. The same are as below : 1. Kanhya Lai Punj Charitable Trust Vs. DIT (Exemption), Delhi, 297 ITR 66 (Del) a) Once the exception u/s. 11 &12 is withdrawn for violation of section

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

trust has denied to be indulged into any of such alleged transaction in the statement given during the course of search.\n12. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the issue challenging the jurisdiction assumed by ld.PCIT. Thus, Grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed as ‘not pressed'.\n13. Now we take

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

Section 12A of the\nAct and, if so, under which provision of the Act?\n18. Second, when the CIT grants registration certificate under Section\n12A of the Act to the assessee, whether grant of certificate is his quasi\njudicial function and, if so, its effect on exercise of his power of\ncancellation of such grant of registration certificate?\n19. Third

CREDAI-PUNE METRO,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, PUNE

trust advancing work of general public utility and certainly not hit by the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has denied the benefit of sections 11 and 12 which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) also on the ground that the assessee did not fall within the scope of charitable purposes

INCOME TAX OFFICERV(EXEMPTION) WARD 2, PUNE vs. CREDIA PUNE METRO , PUNE

trust advancing work of general public utility and certainly not hit by the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has denied the benefit of sections 11 and 12 which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) also on the ground that the assessee did not fall within the scope of charitable purposes

INCOME TAX OFFICERV(EXEMPTION) WARD 2, PUNE vs. CREDIA METRO PUNE, PUNE

trust advancing work of general public utility and certainly not hit by the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has denied the benefit of sections 11 and 12 which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) also on the ground that the assessee did not fall within the scope of charitable purposes

CREDAI - PUNE METRO,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

trust advancing work of general public utility and certainly not hit by the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has denied the benefit of sections 11 and 12 which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) also on the ground that the assessee did not fall within the scope of charitable purposes

ARUN AASHRAY ,PUNE vs. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraarun Aashray The Cit (Exemption), 1541 Clover Highlands, Near Pune Vs. Nibm, Pisoli Road, Kondhwa, Pune – 411048 Pan: Aacta2725Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Mutha Department By : Shri Prashant Gadekar Date Of Hearing : 15-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

29-04-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.03.2024 of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Pune rejecting the application for approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There is a delay of 291 days

SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

29-05-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.02.2025 of the Ld. PCIT(Central), Pune cancelling the registration granted to the assessee by CPC u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) for the period from assessment

CENTURY RAYON EDUCATION SOCIETY,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMP), PUNE

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

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

29-07-2025 Date of 31-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.02.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“CIT(E)”] whereby he rejected the application of the assessee filed before him in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso

KALYAN CHARITY TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMP), PUNE

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

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

29-07-2025 Date of 31-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.02.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“CIT(E)”] whereby he rejected the application of the assessee filed before him in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso