ST LAWRENCE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, AURANGABAD,AURANGABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Xavier‘S Education Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), R-7/1, Town Centre, Nagpur Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Lawrence Educational Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Nagpur Salta Circle, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent

disallowances‖. The answer is self explanatory. 16. Through question no.16, she was asked that: ―you have booked substantial amount under head bonus, allowances and perks in The St. Lawrence Trust ranging averagely 5-6 Cr annually. Similar types of expenses are also booked in the St. Xaviers Trust. Sr. Xavier Education Trust St. Lawrence Educational Trust Since such a huge

ST XAVIER'S EDUCATION TRUST, AURANGABAD,AURANGABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Xavier‘S Education Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), R-7/1, Town Centre, Nagpur Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Lawrence Educational Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Nagpur Salta Circle, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent

disallowances‖. The answer is self explanatory. 16. Through question no.16, she was asked that: ―you have booked substantial amount under head bonus, allowances and perks in The St. Lawrence Trust ranging averagely 5-6 Cr annually. Similar types of expenses are also booked in the St. Xaviers Trust. Sr. Xavier Education Trust St. Lawrence Educational Trust Since such a huge

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

section 148 for same\ntransaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The\nrelevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court read as under:\n“3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July\n2014. The Assessing Officer (\"AO\") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

3) read with section 144C (13) of the Act dated 29.07.2022 is\nprejudicial to the interests of revenue. Thus, both the conditions specified under\nsection 263 of the Act are satisfied in this case and it is a fit case to invoke\nprovisions of the said section. In view of the above, the assessment order dated\n29.07.2022

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

disallowing it in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the major portion of the addition, sustaining only 2% as commission income.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "133A", "133(6)", "271(1)(c)", "37(1)", "131

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

3) and credit of TDS (Ground no. 4) to the assessee, the Ld.\nAR requested the Bench that these issues may be set aside to the file of\nthe Ld. AO with the direction to allow the claim of the assessee as per fact\nand law after due verification thereof.\n8.\nThe Ld. DR supported the order

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

131 of the IT Act i) Shri Prakash G Bhandare ii) Shri Vijay Patil Shri Prakash G. Bhandare (Head Master of Chandrabai Bhauso Patil Madhyamik Vidyalaya) in his statement stated that he has never collected donations for the trust ever since he has been working for the school beginning from 2004. Similarly Shri Vijay Patil stated that he has never

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

131 of the IT Act i) Shri Prakash G Bhandare ii) Shri Vijay Patil Shri Prakash G. Bhandare (Head Master of Chandrabai Bhauso Patil Madhyamik Vidyalaya) in his statement stated that he has never collected donations for the trust ever since he has been working for the school beginning from 2004. Similarly Shri Vijay Patil stated that he has never

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

131 of the IT Act i) Shri Prakash G Bhandare ii) Shri Vijay Patil Shri Prakash G. Bhandare (Head Master of Chandrabai Bhauso Patil Madhyamik Vidyalaya) in his statement stated that he has never collected donations for the trust ever since he has been working for the school beginning from 2004. Similarly Shri Vijay Patil stated that he has never

SOLAPUR DCC BANK EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), SOLAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 713/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Solapur Dcc Bank Employees Co-Op Society Ltd., 46 Vistarit Imarat, Yogeshwar Complex, Solapur Zilla Madhyawarat Bank, Navi Peth Solapur – 413001 Pan: Aabas9454N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

131 Taxman 813 categorically denied chapter VI-A deduction on enhanced business income ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 7 Solapur DCC Bank Employees Co-op Society Ltd., ITA No.713/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 arisen on account of any disallowance holding it since was not derived from business activities of the taxpayer. The Board after considering these decisions has accepted the ratio

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

131", "133A", "132", "142(3)" ], "issues": "Whether reassessment proceedings initiated on a change of opinion are valid; and whether LTCG from sale of shares, meeting all conditions of Section 10(38), can be disallowed