Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT

344 ITR 358High Court2012#1381 most cited

What is Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT authority for?

Under Explanation 3 to Section 147, the Assessing Officer can make additions on issues other than those for which reassessment was originally initiated, even if the original reason for reopening does not survive or no addition is made on that issue, provided such other issues independently warrant scrutiny.

83

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT · Section 147 · Section 148 · scope of reassessment · Explanation 3 to Section 147 · additions on new issues · original reasons for reopening · issue not in reasons · other issues during reassessment · validity of reassessment proceedings

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 124

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 151Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 54esection 148(2)section 32(1)(iia)section 115bbcclarificatory amendmentsection 164(2)anonymous donationsection 140kelvinatorfresh tangible materialsection 234d

Judgments citing Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT

Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…n an important requirement of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts would be totally circumvented. As already noted, except for the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Versus CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 (P & H) all courts have uniformly taken a view that Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act does not change the situation in so far as the present controversy is concerned. The leading decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Versus Jet Airways (I) Ltd. Has been followed by different High Courts. In the case of CIT Versus Jet Airways…

Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 335/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, Vs. The Pcit-1, बनाम Cr Building, Sector 17, H. No. 1656, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bykps6091L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 335/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Jaspreet Singh Sidhu, Vs. The PCIT-1, बनाम CR Building, Sector 17, H. No. 1656, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: BYKPS6091L अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hea…

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1054/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…e treated as conjunctive but has to be disjunctive. It is submitted that the judgment in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Versus CIT and Ors.6 , CIT Versus Atlas Cycle Industries 7 and (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (2011) 336 ITR 136 2015 SCC Online Kar 7386 (2012) 344 ITR 358 (P&H) (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H) CIT Versus Shri Ram Singh 8 were taken note of and the said decision clearly applies to the facts of the case on hand. 6. Mr. Bagaria placed reliance on the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Jet Airways (I) Limited 9, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Versus CIT 10, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus…

Sureshkumar Jethanand Rawlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1053/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…e treated as conjunctive but has to be disjunctive. It is submitted that the judgment in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Versus CIT and Ors.6 , CIT Versus Atlas Cycle Industries 7 and (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (2011) 336 ITR 136 2015 SCC Online Kar 7386 (2012) 344 ITR 358 (P&H) (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H) CIT Versus Shri Ram Singh 8 were taken note of and the said decision clearly applies to the facts of the case on hand. 6. Mr. Bagaria placed reliance on the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Jet Airways (I) Limited 9, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Versus CIT 10, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 791/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 790/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that "a plain reading of Explanation 3 to…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 789/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 787/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Global Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 786/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 785/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that "a plain reading of Explanation 3 to…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 784/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 783/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that "a plain reading of Explanation 3 to…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. Coffee Day Enterprises, Bengaluru

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

ITA 782/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S, Praveena, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that "a plain reading of Explanation 3 to…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 781/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Coffee Day Enterprises Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 780/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Sri C. Ramesh, A.R
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 234B(3)Section 234D

…ond part and would be disjunctive. It segregates the first part from the second. Thus, when we read the full section, the phrase 'and also' cannot be said to be conjunctive. The Punjab & Haryana High Court- in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Vs CIT (2012) CIT 244 ITR 358 has, after noticing that the earlier judgments of the Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts in the cases of CIT Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180 ITR 319 and CIT vs Shri Ram Singh(2008) 306 ITR 343 respectively] were rendered prior to the insertion of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act, held that…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

ITA/239/2019HC Delhi19 Oct 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263Section 40A(3)

…); Manu/GJ/0061/2013 (iii) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Addl. CIT Manu/DE/1935/2014 23.1. The only High Court, which has taken a contrary view, as it were, is the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of: Majinder Singh Kang v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 (P&H); (2012) 25 taxmann.com 124 (P&H) Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:17.11.2023 11:49:09 Signature Not Verified ITA 239/2019 Page 6 of 7 23.2. In my opinion, with respect, the court, in rendering the judgment in Majinder Singh Kang's case, ignored the fact that the provisions of Explanation 3 had to…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata vs. B.P.Poddar Foundation for Education

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/143/2021HC Calcutta13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…the judgment in the case of Majinder Singh Kang Versus CIT and Ors.6 , CIT Versus Atlas Cycle Industries 7 and 3 (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 4 (2011) 336 ITR 136 5 2015 SCC Online Kar 7386 6 (2012) 344 ITR 358 (P&H) 7 (1989) 180 ITR 319 (P&H) ITAT NO. 143 OF 2021 Page 7 of 16 CIT Versus Shri Ram Singh 8 were taken note of and the said decision clearly applies to the facts of the case on hand. 6. Mr. Bagaria placed reliance on the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Jet Airways (I) Limited 9, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Ve…

ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore vs. Mahendra Educational Trust, Manakkal

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

ITA 125/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 125 & 126/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co Nos.: 18 & 19/Chny/2019 (In Ita Nos.125 & 126/Chny/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 125 & 126/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The ACIT (Exemptions), M/s. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, v. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. PAN: AAAAM2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & CO Nos.: 18 &…

ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore vs. Mahendra Educational Trust, Manakkal

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

ITA 126/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 125 & 126/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co Nos.: 18 & 19/Chny/2019 (In Ita Nos.125 & 126/Chny/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 125 & 126/CHNY/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The ACIT (Exemptions), M/s. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, v. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. PAN: AAAAM2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & CO Nos.: 18 &…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle, Jaipur vs. Modern School Society, Kota

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 357/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 13(3)

…or conduction prescribed u/s 11 & 13 of the IT Act or the conditions of granting approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act then, withdrawal of the approval is patently illegal. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DCIT vs. Alarippu 244 ITR 358 as well as Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. K.L. Anand, Income Tax Officer 230 ITR 522 and submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has defined expression investment, deposit and loan and held that these words have different meanings. The advance given resulting no income or return cannot be termed as investment or loan it cannot b…