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 religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

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 religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

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 religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

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 religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

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 religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

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 religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE,A BAD, AURANGABAD

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

64,000 in FY 2007- 08 relevant to AY 2008-09 on account of sale of immovable property of the assessee trust. The objects of the trust, we may notice, was to run schools, colleges, dispensaries, Dharmashalas, etc. The assessee could not apply the aforesaid surplus for charitable purposes in AY 2008-09 and had applied for accumulation of such

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

section 11 to 13 and hence, the ld. CIT(A) should have directed the ld. A.O. to grant the exemption u/s.11 to the assessee trust. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s.36(i)(va) of Rs.1,64,980/- without appreciating that the assessee trust was entitled to claim exemption u/s.11 and hence, no disallowance could

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

section 11 to 13 and hence, the ld. CIT(A) should have directed the ld. A.O. to grant the exemption u/s.11 to the assessee trust. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s.36(i)(va) of Rs.1,64,980/- without appreciating that the assessee trust was entitled to claim exemption u/s.11 and hence, no disallowance could

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

section 11 to 13 and hence, the ld. CIT(A) should have directed the ld. A.O. to grant the exemption u/s.11 to the assessee trust. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s.36(i)(va) of Rs.1,64,980/- without appreciating that the assessee trust was entitled to claim exemption u/s.11 and hence, no disallowance could

DWARAKA CHARITABLE TRUST,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 13(3)(b) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case on hand are that, the assessee is a charitable Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and its main objective is to provide medical relief and facilities by running a hospital, Trust Deed dated 18-04- 1974 at Page

NAVALMAL FIRODIA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

64,000 in FY 200708 relevant to AY 2008-09 on account of sale of immovable property of the assessee trust. The objects of the trust, we may notice, was to run schools, colleges, dispensaries, Dharmashalas, etc. The assessee could not apply the aforesaid surplus for charitable purposes in AY 2008-09 and had applied for accumulation of such surplus

SHRI VASUPUJYA SWAMI MAHARAJ TEMPLE TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

64,000 in FY 2007-08 relevant to AY 2008-09 on account of sale of immovable property of the assessee trust. The objects of the trust, we may notice, was to run schools, colleges, dispensaries, Dharmashalas, etc. The assessee could not apply the aforesaid surplus for charitable purposes in AY 2008-09 and had applied for accumulation of such

SHRI ISHWARLAL GULABCHAND VARDHAMANTAP AYAMBIL TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

64,000 in FY 2007-08 relevant to AY 2008-09 on account of sale of immovable property of the assessee trust. The objects of the trust, we may notice, was to run schools, colleges, dispensaries, Dharmashalas, etc. The assessee could not apply the aforesaid surplus for charitable purposes in AY 2008-09 and had applied for accumulation of such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. NOBLE MEDICAL FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 2328/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

Charitable Trust (AOP) and is engaged in running of a hospital and giving medical relief. The trust came into existence on 16-08-2004 and got registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 on 16-10-2004. Assessee trust is registered u/s.12AA of the I.T. Act. Assessee filed its return of income on 28-09-2011 declaring Nil income

BARAMATI VIPASSANA SAMITI,BARAMATI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2642 & 2643/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Baramati Vipassana Samiti, V The Commissioner Of Ward-I, 62000736, Chiman S Income Tax, Exemption, Shah Mala, Baramati, Pune. Maharashtra – 413102. Pan: Aaetb7354C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Chandra Vijay – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

charitable nature and the genuineness of activities of the assessee.” 2.1 Thus, ld.CIT(E) rejected the application only on one ground i.e.not obtaining permission of Charity Commissioner for the loan. 3. For the same reason, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of approval under section 80G of the Act also. 4. Aggrieved with such order of ld.CIT(Exemption

BARAMATI VIPASSANA SAMITI,BARAMATI vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2642 & 2643/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Baramati Vipassana Samiti, V The Commissioner Of Ward-I, 62000736, Chiman S Income Tax, Exemption, Shah Mala, Baramati, Pune. Maharashtra – 413102. Pan: Aaetb7354C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Chandra Vijay – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

charitable nature and the genuineness of activities of the assessee.” 2.1 Thus, ld.CIT(E) rejected the application only on one ground i.e.not obtaining permission of Charity Commissioner for the loan. 3. For the same reason, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of approval under section 80G of the Act also. 4. Aggrieved with such order of ld.CIT(Exemption

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

64, was also unweil due to prolonged back pain, kidney-related problems and Umbilical hernia and unable to attend office for a considerable period. Copies of the medical certificates and prescriptions are enclosed herewith as Enclosure 3. 6) That again in the year 2025, my health started to deteriorate and I was unable to look into routine chores. However, since