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

36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institution or state financial corporation or in respect

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

36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institution or state financial corporation or in respect

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

36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institution or state financial corporation or in respect

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

36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institution or state financial corporation or in respect

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

36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institution or state financial corporation or in respect

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

36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public financial institution or state financial corporation or in respect

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

charitable or religious purposes, created before the 1st day of\nApril, 1952, to the extent to which such income is applied to such\npurposes outside India:\nProvided that the Board, by general or special order, has directed in\neither case that it shall not be included in the total income of the person\nin receipt of such income

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

xii) Copy of bank account statement for the last 3 years/since inception, whichever is later. (xiii) Note on activities carried out in the last 3 years / since inception whichever is later along with supporting credible evidence. Also furnish the details of beneficiaries of the activities and how they are identified. (xiv) Copies of computation of total income for the last

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

1,36,50,000 U/S.115BBC despite the fact that appellant trust has maintained all the details /particulars prescribed U/S.115BBC such as name and address of the donor and the requirements of section 115BBC are fully complied with and therefore the addition is perverse being contrary to the facts and patently illegal and deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

1,36,50,000 U/S.115BBC despite the fact that appellant trust has maintained all the details /particulars prescribed U/S.115BBC such as name and address of the donor and the requirements of section 115BBC are fully complied with and therefore the addition is perverse being contrary to the facts and patently illegal and deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

1,36,50,000 U/S.115BBC despite the fact that appellant trust has maintained all the details /particulars prescribed U/S.115BBC such as name and address of the donor and the requirements of section 115BBC are fully complied with and therefore the addition is perverse being contrary to the facts and patently illegal and deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

Charitable Institutions, 363 ITR 230. (E). As regards to the allegation of violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) by providing rent free accommodation to Shri Maruti N. Navale, it is submitted that the said Shri Maruti N. Navale had not been paid any remuneration by the appellant society for the following services rendered by him :- “a. Complete administration

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

1,36,50,000\nU/S.115BBC despite the fact that appellant trust has maintained all\nthe details /particulars prescribed U/S.115BBC such as name and\naddress of the donor and the requirements of section 115BBC are\nfully complied with and therefore the addition is perverse being\ncontrary to the facts and patently illegal and deserve to be quashed.\n7. Learned

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

1,36,50,000\nU/S.115BBC despite the fact that appellant trust has maintained all\nthe details /particulars prescribed U/S.115BBC such as name and\naddress of the donor and the requirements of section 115BBC are\nfully complied with and therefore the addition is perverse being\ncontrary to the facts and patently illegal and deserve to be quashed.\n7. Learned

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

1,36,50,000\nU/S.115BBC despite the fact that appellant trust has maintained all\nthe details /particulars prescribed U/S.115BBC such as name and\naddress of the donor and the requirements of section 115BBC are\nfully complied with and therefore the addition is perverse being\ncontrary to the facts and patently illegal and deserve to be quashed.\n7. Learned

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

36. In Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the IT Act cannot be Invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AG. It is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption