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

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 17. On going through the above sections 68

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

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 17. On going through the above sections 68

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

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 17. On going through the above sections 68

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

iia) of clause\n(24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does\nnot maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and\naddress of the person making such contribution and such other\nparticulars as may be prescribed.”\n17. On going through the above sections 68

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

iia) of clause\n(24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does\nnot maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and\naddress of the person making such contribution and such other\nparticulars as may be prescribed.”\n17. On going through the above sections 68

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

iia) of clause\n(24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does\nnot maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and\naddress of the person making such contribution and such other\nparticulars as may be prescribed.”\n17. On going through the above sections 68

KAILASWASI NARAYAN ALIAS BAPU PATIL SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

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

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.] 5.3.4 From the above sub-section (2) of section 115BBC, it is clear that two exceptions have

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

BK EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY,NASHIK vs. ITO(E), WARD 1(1) , NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1429/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

68 was not justified on facts and in law. 3. The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that impugned addition u/s.68 of the Act towards the amount of Rs.2,51,000/- received from Dr. Bhagwan Nivrutti Elmane is uncalled for because Dr. Bhagwan Nivrutti Elmane