M/S SANT SHRI MAHESH MUNI JI BOREWALE EDUCATIONAL WELFARE ,MOGA vs. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( EXAMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2016-17

Trust (1976) 102 ITR 474." 31. The authorities in the form of case law referred to above also reiterate that a mere incurrence of (surplus) profit does not automatically presuppose a business activity that invalidates the exemption under section 10(23C)(vi); the same has to be tested on whether such profits are being utilized within the meaning

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

THE DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

20 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 7. In the 1st round of appeal, the Tribunal on alleged violation of provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, has observed that since there was no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, the provisions of section

MESERS IMPROVEMENT TRUST ,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2(15) A.1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself in any trade, commerce or business, or provide service in relation thereto for any consideration ("cess

GURU TEG BAHADUR EDUATIONAL TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 301/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2018-19

charitable purposes” but purely on commercial principles having profit motives [ net surplus of the applicant trust is at 43.9%, 69.3% and 73.7% during the F.Y. 2014- 15,2015-16 and F.Y. 2016-17respectively]. The applicant has been claiming exemptions under section 10(23C)(vi) and section 11 of the Act wrongly, even without having approval of the prescribed authorities

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Charitable Trust and Ors vs Union of India and Ors reported in 327 ITR 73. ITA 596/Amr/2016 9 10. Decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT(E) Chandigarh vs. Shree Mahavir Jain Society (Regd.) in Appeal No. 231 of 2016 order dated 11/09/2017. 17. On the contrary, the learned D.R. for the revenue had submitted that

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

20. It was further submitted that the second proviso to sub section (2) of section 12A further provides that no action u/s 147 shall be taken by AO in case of such trust or any institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Trust 96 taxmann.com 356 (Kerala) as decided by the Kerala High Court is held as under: “4. Since the assessee is engaged in the activity of imparting education since its establishment, it moved two applications, one on 08-10-1998 seeking recognition under section 80G of the Act and other on 25-05-1999 seeking registration under section 12A with

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Trust 96 taxmann.com 356 (Kerala) as decided by the Kerala High Court is held as under: “4. Since the assessee is engaged in the activity of imparting education since its establishment, it moved two applications, one on 08-10-1998 seeking recognition under section 80G of the Act and other on 25-05-1999 seeking registration under section 12A with