9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - CIT(A) followed the orders of his predecessor for Assessment Years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and decided the issue in favour of Assessee which was upheld by ITAT - HELD THAT:- ITAT in the impugned order has also followed what its co-ordinate Bench held in its order [ 2016 (4) TMI 1307 - ITAT PUNE] for Assessment Years 2008-2009 and 2009- 2010. Since there was nothing on record before the ITAT (or even before us) that the order of ITAT dated 15th April 2016 has been set aside or overruled in any manner by the High Court, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Therefore, we also find no reason to interfere with the order of ITAT. Decided against revenue. - K. R. SHRIRAM And DR. N. K. GOKHALE , JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti Mangeshkar, who is a trustee with no significant qualification and Mrs. Meena Kelkar, mother of the trustee Dr. Dhananjay Kelkar, who also did not possess any qualification and was beyond 65 years of age. 6. Being aggrieved by this assessment order dated 22nd March 2013, Assessee-Trust preferred an Appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ( CIT(A) ). The CIT(A) granted relief to Assessee-Trust by restoring the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Revenue challenged the said order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ). The ITAT was pleased to dismiss the Appeal by an order dated 23rd June 2017. It is this order of the ITAT that Revenue is challenging and proposed the following substantial questions of law : a. Wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ITAT by an order dated 15th April 2016 upheld the order of CIT(A). The ITAT in the impugned order has also followed what its co-ordinate Bench held in its order dated 15th April 2016 for Assessment Years 2008-2009 and 2009- 2010. Since there was nothing on record before the ITAT (or even before us) that the order of ITAT dated 15th April 2016 has been set aside or overruled in any manner by the High Court, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Therefore, we also find no reason to interfere with the order of ITAT. 9. Mr. Suresh Kumar states that the Appeals those were filed before for the earlier years have also been dismissed on the ground of delay. 10. Having considered the findings, we find no infirmity i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
