INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the audit report in Form 10B was filed

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the audit report in Form 10B was filed

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the audit report in Form 10B was filed

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condonation of delay in filing the return and Audit Report on Form 10B, assessee has to approach the competent authority along with justification for the delay”. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Audit Report on Form No.10B was filed on 16.02.2022 and at the time of processing

DISTRICT PROBATION & AFTER CARE ASSOCIATION SATARA,SATARA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B was also furnished on 21.09.2023 and the main reason for delay was on account of covid-19 pandemic outbreak restrictions. However, even after the uploading of Audit Report in Form 10B on 30.03.2021, in the return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act on 30.11.2021 the benefit of application of income

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE vs. SHIVAI VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act and directed the Ld. CPC/AO to delete the addition made in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The relevant findings and observations of the Ld. Addl./JCIT

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

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

1,61,452. The return so filed was not accompanied by audited accounts and audit report in Form No. 10B as required under Section. 12A of the Act. The audit report dated November 12, 1984, was, however, filed by the ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 assessee in the prescribed form on March 6, 1987, before the completion of the assessment

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE AURANGABAD, NEAR CANTONMENT AREA AURANGABAD vs. ALHIRA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY, AURANGABAD, NEAR KAT-KAT GATE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee in C

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 12A(1)(ba) was not complied by the assessee which results in disentitlement of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act and, therefore, the exemption was rightly denied by CPC. We find that in the light of CBDT order dated 27.09.2019, the above observation of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Chennai is not correct since

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and proceed to decide both the appeals. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The learned CIT(Ex.) erred in rejecting application filed by the appellant in Form 10AB for approval under sub clause (iii) of 12A(1)(ac) without appreciating that the said action was not justified