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

exemption claimed, for breach of the requirement of section 54E of the Act. 7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons on which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section 54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee. The question of denying any such claim under

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

exemption claimed, for breach of the requirement of section 54E of the Act. 7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons on which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section 54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee. The question of denying any such claim under

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

exemption claimed, for breach of the\nrequirement of section 54E of the Act.\n7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons\non which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section\n54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by\nthe assessee. The question of denying any such claim under

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

exemption claimed, for breach of the\nrequirement of section 54E of the Act.\n7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons\non which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section\n54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by\nthe assessee. The question of denying any such claim under

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

exemption claimed, for breach of the\nrequirement of section 54E of the Act.\n7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons\non which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section\n54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by\nthe assessee. The question of denying any such claim under

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

Section 68 suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessee offer no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assesses in the opinion

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

exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income. Therefore, the third ground raised by the Revenue becomes infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed. 65. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of contribution towards Superannuation

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

exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income. Therefore, the third ground raised by the Revenue becomes infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed. 65. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of contribution towards Superannuation

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

exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income. Therefore, the third ground raised by the Revenue becomes infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed. 65. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of contribution towards Superannuation

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

exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income. Therefore, the third ground raised by the Revenue becomes infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed. 65. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of contribution towards Superannuation

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

exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income. Therefore, the third ground raised by the Revenue becomes infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed. 65. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of contribution towards Superannuation

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

exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income. Therefore, the third ground raised by the Revenue becomes infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed. 65. Ground No.4 raised by the Revenue relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the deduction on account of contribution towards Superannuation

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act by Finance Act w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the assessee was made taxable entity. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not filed return of income for assessment year 2003-04. Hence notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee; in response to which assessee filed return of income declaring total income

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act by Finance Act w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the assessee was made taxable entity. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not filed return of income for assessment year 2003-04. Hence notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee; in response to which assessee filed return of income declaring total income

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act by Finance Act w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the assessee was made taxable entity. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not filed return of income for assessment year 2003-04. Hence notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee; in response to which assessee filed return of income declaring total income

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act by Finance Act w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the assessee was made taxable entity. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not filed return of income for assessment year 2003-04. Hence notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee; in response to which assessee filed return of income declaring total income

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act by Finance Act w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the assessee was made taxable entity. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not filed return of income for assessment year 2003-04. Hence notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee; in response to which assessee filed return of income declaring total income

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

exemption under section 10(20A) of the Act by Finance Act w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the assessee was made taxable entity. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not filed return of income for assessment year 2003-04. Hence notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee; in response to which assessee filed return of income declaring total income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

exempt under\nsection 10(38) of the Act. Further, the entire amount of Rs.7,68,24,174 was added\nback treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section