The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -1, Pune v. B. P. H. E. Society
High Court
24 Mar 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -1, Pune v. B. P. H. E. Society
Date of order
24 Mar 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -1, Pune v. B. P. H. E. Society, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeals as such are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1 ITA104.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income-tax -1, Pune.. Appellant
Versus
B. P. H. E. Society
.. Respondent
Shri D. V. Soman, Advocate for the PetitionerShri S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent Sole
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income-tax -1, Pune .. Appellant
Versus
B. P. H. E. Society.. Respondent
Shri D. V. Soman, Advocate for the PetitionerShri S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent Sole
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE : 24TH MARCH, 2015.
PER COURT :
1)We have heard Mr. Soman the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Patil the learned counsel for respondent.
2 ITA104.14
2)We have considered the judgment delivered by the Tribunal. It is not disputed that Dr. Barnabas is the Principal of the institution. The stay of Principal in the campus is beneficial for the educational institution and the same is also a requirement as per the Maharashtra Universities Act. Even this Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant involving the same issue in respect of the same Principal occupying the bunglow for assesment year, 2007-2008. The cogent reasons are given by the authorities. The appeals as such are dismissed. No costs.
[ A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
sam/March. 15
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.