DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE,PUNE vs. SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

c), 13(1)(d), 13(2)(a). 13(2)(g), and 13(2)(h), as well as the\nprescribed modes of investment under Section 11(5). Therefore, the\nFAO was required to disallow the entire investment of Rs 32,75,0007-\nand tax it at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). The FAO was also\nrequired to reject the assessee

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

C IT v. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312, wherein the Gujarat High Court held as under (page 325): "Now, even on this question, we find that there is nothing in section 263(1) to show that before passing the final order under that section, the Commissioner must necessarily and in all cases record final conclusions above the points

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.”

Disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. a) The learned ADDLN/JCIT (5), Delhi (CIT-A) erred in law and of facts in confirming the action of learned CPC of adding back Rs.6,00,000 to the total income of the Appellant by invoking the 2 provisions of sub clause (c) of Section 11(3) r.w.s 115BBI

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

disallow the\nappellant's claim when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act.\n7. Hence, I find no merit in the current appeal and, as a result, dismiss the\nappeal.\"\n5.\nAggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the assessee is in\nappeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:\n1)\nThe

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

13,06,741. The Appellant filed response letter dated 18/03/21 to Jurisdiction AO, Solapur copy enclosed as Annexure B. contending that such adjustment cannot be made under section 143(1) since the issue is covered in favour of the Appellant and nonetheless, debatable in nature, falling outside the scope of the provisions of section

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

13,06,741. The Appellant filed response letter dated 18/03/21 to Jurisdiction AO, Solapur copy enclosed as Annexure B. contending that such adjustment cannot be made under section 143(1) since the issue is covered in favour of the Appellant and nonetheless, debatable in nature, falling outside the scope of the provisions of section

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

disallowance has been made for not applying set apart accumulation funds during F.Y. 2016-17 within the period of five years as provided u/s.11(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that issue in Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Vs. CIT – ITA No.505/PUN/2025 order dated 23.06.2025 wherein

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

disallowance has been made for not applying set apart accumulation funds during F.Y. 2016-17 within the period of five years as provided u/s.11(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that issue in Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Vs. CIT – ITA No.505/PUN/2025 order dated 23.06.2025 wherein

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

disallowed the benefit of the exemption for\ncommission provided to doctors engaged in private practice for referring\ntheir patients to the assessee's diagnostic centre, holding that:\n\"It, thus, emerges that an assessee would not be entitled to\ndeduction of payments made in contravention of law. Similarly,\npayments which are opposed to public policy being in the nature

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

C, Wing 1, EON Free Zone, Commissioner बनाम / MIDC, Kharadi Knowledge Park, of Income Tax, V/s. Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune Pune 411 014, Maharashtra PAN : AABCE4323Q .......अपीलाथ" / ……""यथ" / Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Vishal Kalra Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement: 03.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

section 12AB of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while raising the issue of challenging the powers available in section 12AB of the Act made threefold contentions and the same are :\n(a)\nthat in absence of express powers provided u/s.12AB of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s.12A of the Act, notice issued on 21.03.2023 u/s.12AB

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of health and education cess. Post amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2022, the assessee also filed Form 69 as mandated by the amended provisions withdrawing its claim of deduction towards health and education cess for AY 2020-21. Therefore, in our view, there was no error on the part of the assessee in claiming education cess

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

3) of the Act were solely on account of different views taken on the same set of facts and, therefore, they could, at the most, be termed as difference of opinion but nothing to do with the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It was claimed that mere disallowance of the claim in the assessment

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

3) of the Act were solely on account of different views taken on the same set of facts and, therefore, they could, at the most, be termed as difference of opinion but nothing to do with the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It was claimed that mere disallowance of the claim in the assessment

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

3) of the Act were solely on account of different views taken on the same set of facts and, therefore, they could, at the most, be termed as difference of opinion but nothing to do with the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It was claimed that mere disallowance of the claim in the assessment

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

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub- section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." 5.6 Thus, when the appellant has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars, conditions laid down in Explanation-1 (supra

POONA OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

disallowed the benefit of the exemption for\ncommission provided to doctors engaged in private practice for referring\ntheir patients to the assessee's diagnostic centre, holding that:\n"It, thus, emerges that an assessee would not be entitled to\ndeduction of payments made in contravention of law. Similarly,\npayments which are opposed to public policy being in the nature