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

43. We find the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shahzadanand Charity Trust reported in 228 ITR 292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations

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

43. We find the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shahzadanand Charity Trust reported in 228 ITR 292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations

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

43. We find the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shahzadanand Charity Trust reported in 228 ITR 292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations

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

43. We find the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shahzadanand Charity Trust reported in 228 ITR 292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations

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

43. We find the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shahzadanand Charity Trust reported in 228 ITR 292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations

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

43. We find the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shahzadanand Charity Trust reported in 228 ITR 292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations

THE JAIN KASAR SAMAJ SANSTHA,SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is devoid of merits and the\nsame is hereby dismissed

1][b] of the Act exclude the benefit of section 11\nand 12 to a charitable institution created or established after\ncоmmеnсеment of the Act, income thereof the trust for the benefit of\nany particular religious community or caste. The Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of CIT vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat reported in 43

THE JAIN KASAR SAMAJ SANSTHA,SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is devoid of merits and the\nsame is hereby dismissed

1][b] of the Act exclude the benefit of section 11\nand 12 to a charitable institution created or established after\ncоmmеnсеment of the Act, income thereof the trust for the benefit of\nany particular religious community or caste. The Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of CIT vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat reported in 43

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)

charitable trust formed in the year 1946 and registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 which is engaged in education activities by running various schools/ colleges in and around Shirur of Pune district and also holding 12A registration alongwith 80G entitlement for past many years. From the copy of 143(1)(a) intimation order, it is apparent

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

Charitable, Medical, Educational & Cultural Trust vs. DGIT (2021)\n277 Taxman 355 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said\ndecision has held that when application under section 245C made by trust is\nallowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone\nwould have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as\nprovided

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

Charitable, Medical, Educational & Cultural Trust vs. DGIT (2021)\n277 Taxman 355 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said\ndecision has held that when application under section 245C made by trust is\nallowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone\nwould have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as\nprovided

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Charitable, Medical, Educational & Cultural Trust vs. DGIT (2021)\n277 Taxman 355 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said\ndecision has held that when application under section 245C made by trust is\nallowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone\nwould have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as\nprovided

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.

trust u/s 11 of the Act on account of 17 M/s. Sinhagad Technical Education Society violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) and assessed the excesses income over expenditure at maximum marginal rate of tax. 16. Being aggrieved by the above order of assessment, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the findings

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Charitable, Medical, Educational & Cultural Trust vs. DGIT (2021) 277 Taxman 355 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when application under section 245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Charitable, Medical, Educational & Cultural Trust vs. DGIT (2021) 277 Taxman 355 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when application under section 245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Charitable, Medical, Educational & Cultural Trust vs. DGIT (2021) 277 Taxman 355 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when application under section 245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Charitable, Medical, Educational & Cultural Trust vs. DGIT (2021) 277 Taxman 355 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when application under section 245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Charitable, Medical, Educational & Cultural Trust vs. DGIT (2021) 277 Taxman 355 (Mad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when application under section 245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided