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

iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income by way of any anonymous donation, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated at the rate of thirty

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

iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income by way of any anonymous donation, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated at the rate of thirty

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

17 of the statement the assessee has claimed that no\ndonations were received during the year. Thus, the sources of these\ncash deposits remain unexplained.\nDuring the course of survey proceedings various statements of\ndonors have been recorded wherein they have denied having paid\nany donations. Further, the claim of Karyakartas having collected\ndonation on behalf of the trust

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

17 of the statement the assessee has claimed that no\ndonations were received during the year. Thus, the sources of these\ncash deposits remain unexplained.\nDuring the course of survey proceedings various statements of\ndonors have been recorded wherein they have denied having paid\nany donations. Further, the claim of Karyakartas having collected\ndonation on behalf of the trust

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION,, PUNE

In the result, 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.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

iv) or sub-clause (v) [or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiad) or sub-clause (vi) or by any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub- clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 [ or by an electoral trust]].” The above provision specifies that the “Voluntary Contributions

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

17 of the statement the assessee has claimed that no\ndonations were received during the year. Thus, the sources of these\ncash deposits remain unexplained.\nDuring the course of survey proceedings various statements of\ndonors have been recorded wherein they have denied having paid\nany donations. Further, the claim of Karyakartas having collected\ndonation on behalf of the trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

iv) "relevant assessment year" means any assessment year falling within a period of fifteen consecutive assessment years referred to in this section; 46 (v) "Special Economic Zone" and "Unit" shall have the same meanings as assigned to them under clauses (za) and (zc) of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Explanation 2.—For the removal

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and the Hon'ble\nKolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees\nCooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income\narising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot\nbe attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for\nexemption u/s.80P(2

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68) Thus HADA is not a municipality or local authority or similar body known by any other name or complete substitute of municipality or local authority.(Para73) Hence agriculture land under HADA is not a capital asset within sec 2(14)(iii) . In present case of assessee the agriculture land is located in NRDA which is formed by Notification under

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68) Thus HADA is not a municipality or local authority or similar body known by any other name or complete substitute of municipality or local authority.(Para73) Hence agriculture land under HADA is not a capital asset within sec 2(14)(iii) . In present case of assessee the agriculture land is located in NRDA which is formed by Notification under

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68) Thus HADA is not a municipality or local authority or similar body known by any other name or complete substitute of municipality or local authority.(Para73) Hence agriculture land under HADA is not a capital asset within sec 2(14)(iii) . In present case of assessee the agriculture land is located in NRDA which is formed by Notification under

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin - Trib.)]- Para 7.2 / 7.3 (ii) Prem Prakash Mandal Sewa Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) - [(2021) 132 taxmann.com 269 (Raipur - Trib.)] (iii) Dera Baba Bhai Gurdas Ji Udasin Trust (Regd) (Mansa) v. ITO [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 278 (Amritsar - Trib.)] (iv) Alpha Educational Trust v. DCIT (E) [(2023) 150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.)] II. Proposition 2 : Where an application

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

iv) additional surcharge calculated in the manner provided in the Schedule. Read in this way the additional charges form a part of the income tax and super tax‖ 21. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court, therefore, has decided the issue in favour of the revenue and held that surcharge and additional surcharge are part of the income- tax. At this stage

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

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

68,480/-. 2) The Ld. CPC and Ld. CIT-A ought to have appreciated the fact that, amount of Rs.90,70,20,511/- as accumulated by the University has been rightly utilized by it before 31 March 2023 and therefore, no adjustment should be made in this regard. 3) The Ld. CPC and Ld. CIT-A ought to have appreciated

NASHIK DISTRICT PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

iv) Section 80P(4) excludes the applicability of deduction under section 80P. altogether to any co-operative bank and to exclude the normal banking business income from deduction u/s 80P. v) The words used in Section 80P(4) "in relation to", can include within its ambit and scope the interest income earned by any co-operative society

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in deleting the of Rs.17,80,059/- made on account of interest paid on alleged unsecured loans is 37 of the Income tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the facts

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

17,93,40,212 10 6,32,62,639 6 3,26,55,104 TOTAL 23 9,86,10,565 68 33,85,80,176 14 9,02,79,805 8 4,67,15,104 7. Referring to the above, he submitted that in the subsequent submissions the assessee relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

IV) The Tribunal shall, thereafter decide the Appeal on it's own merits. (V) As the date of appearance has been given by this Court, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to issue fresh notice to the parties." 3. Thereafter, the issue came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 15.11.2022. As per the directions

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 of the Act. iii) The AO, upon verification of the relevant details/documents, shall record his clear findings as to the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the respective creditors, in respect of the transactions under consideration. 10. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal