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

263 ITR 13, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the finding of fact recorded by the AO and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) and section 13(3)(c) gave rise to no question

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

charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee at any point

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

charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee at any point

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

charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee at any point

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

charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee at any point

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

charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee at any point

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

charitable purpose nor exercised the option in writing for the accumulation of income as per the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the said finding and computation by the Assessing Officer has neither been challenged before the CIT(A) nor has been challenged before the Tribunal by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee at any point

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

charitable objectives as provided in the trust deed of the donor trust i.e. the assessee. However, no such documentary evidence like trust deeds or other documents were sought and examined to establish the similarity of objects between the assessee Trust and the done trusts. The AO has failed to examine this issue as well. Similar is the case regarding

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. It is against the direction of the Ld. PCIT to the Ld. AO to revise the impugned assessment order in the light of the aforesaid discussion that the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and the solitary ground raised by the assessee relates thereto. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that

SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

charitable trust, made an investment of Rs 32,75,000/-\nin M/s Prabodh Artha Sanchay, a partnership firm where its trustee had\na substantial interest. This investment is in direct violation of Sections\n13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2)(a). 13(2)(g), and 13(2)(h), as well as the\nprescribed modes of investment under Section

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

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 by the Assessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement

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

charitable trust or institution. We find that\nrecently Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT Vs Gabriel India (2025)\n173 taxmann.com 219 (Mum) on similar issue where the assessee-company\nclaimed deduction under section 80G at the rate of 50% of CSR expenses and\nfurnished receipts of donees evidencing eligibility of deduction under section 80G\nallowed claim of such

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

trust is deductible u/s.11 of the Act. So far as the advances received from PSSK and USPL, it was submitted that nature of transaction is advance taken from sugar factories for making payments to labourers and transporters who undertake the activities of harvesting and transportation of sugarcane and 5 Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur also for social and charitable

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

charitable purposes. The assessee also relied on certain decisions. However, the explanation putforth by the assessee trust was not acceptable. Ld.CIT(E) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs(Imports), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors dated 30.07.2018 and other decisions came to hold that there is 5 Shri Trimbakeshwar Devsthan

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

trust. Assessee in its submission has stated that all these details were filed before the ld. AO which have been thoroughly examined during the course of assessment proceedings and further stated that since the alleged receipts of income from rent, collecting event receipts, Gymkhana subscribers etc. at Rs.81,34,015/- is less than 20% of the gross receipts of Rs.5

SAI ANIRUDHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2240/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Sai Anirudha Education V The Income Tax Officer, Society, S Kolhapur. At Post Pali Ratnagiri, Ratnagiri – 415803. Maharashtra. Pan: Aahts2715F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P.S.Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Nitin R Waghmode – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Dated 13.09.2024 Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 30.03.2024 In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). ITA No.2240/PUN/2024 [A] “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT erred in not granting registration u/s 12AC on the ground of not having been satisfied abou8t the charitable nature of activities of the trust or genuineness of its activities in spite

MAHARASHTRA EX-SERVICEMEN CORPORATION,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandramaharashtra Ex-Servicemen Cit(Exemption), Pune Corporation Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, Raigad Building, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aadcm4072C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2025 O R D E R

trust, society, or Section 8 company is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that non-availment of section 8 / section 25 registration under the Companies Act does not lead to any tag of non-charitable activity of MESCO. He submitted that MESCO was and is and shall remain a helping compassionate hand mainly for ex-servicemen. He submitted

GOURISHANKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1234 & 1235/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Gourishankar Education Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Society, Panchganga Apartment, Opp. Axis Bank, Radhika Road, Satara- 415001. Pan : Aaatg6668A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1234/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

Charitable Trust and therefore the provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the IT Act are violated. Since the assessee did not reply to any of the notices, the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act on 16.03.2022 by making the addition of Rs.3.30 crores thereby assessing total income at Rs.3.30 crores