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

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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated 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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated 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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated 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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated 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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated 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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated provisions of section

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

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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated provisions of section

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

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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated 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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated 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

1. The assessing officer denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11/12of the Act on the following two counts: (a) The object of the Trust does not fall within the charitable ambit of ‘advancement of general public utility’ in terms of section 2(15) of the Act; and (b) The assessee has violated provisions of section

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

charitable and there was no change in activities of the assessee. In our view the assessee, though was registered on 25.9.2009, however the assessee, was entitled to the benefit of section 11, 12 and 13 of the income tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 under consideration in terms of the proviso to section 12 A of The Income

M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & 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

charitable and there was no change in activities of the assessee. In our view the assessee, though was registered on 25.9.2009, however the assessee, was entitled to the benefit of section 11, 12 and 13 of the income tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 under consideration in terms of the proviso to section 12 A of The Income

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

charitable and there was no change in activities of the assessee. In our view the assessee, though was registered on 25.9.2009, however the assessee, was entitled to the benefit of section 11, 12 and 13 of the income tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 under consideration in terms of the proviso to section 12 A of The Income

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

charitable and there was no change in activities of the assessee. In our view the assessee, though was registered on 25.9.2009, however the assessee, was entitled to the benefit of section 11, 12 and 13 of the income tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 under consideration in terms of the proviso to section 12 A of The Income

M/S BABA BANDA BAHADUR MEMORIAL AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDKOT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 66/Asr/2017 Assessment Year:2015-16

12 are not applicable while considering the application for registration under Section 12AA of the Act. The application for registration is required to be made within one year of the creation of the Trust. Section 12AA of the Act, requires satisfaction in respect of the genuineness of the activities of the Trust, which includes the activities which the Trust

M/S SANTOSH FOUNDATION ,RAMPURA PHUL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 11 depends on the application of such fund for the charitable activities by the trust only. Thus, the CIT(E) is empowered to satisfy himself only about two factors i.e. the objects of the trust and the genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution and such powers does not extend to the eligibility of the trust/institution

MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH WAR MUSEUM SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXAMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 618/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

trust or institution formed for charitable or religious purposes. Clauses (a) and (aa) of section 12A(1) provide for application and registration of such trust/institution u/s. 12AA, also specifying the procedure per which the application for registration is to be made. Section 13 sets out the conditions and circumstances where sections 11 and 12

M/S ANWAR SULTANA EDUCTIONAL TRUST,SRINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 140/Asr/2020 Assessment Year:N/A M/S Anwar Sultana Educational Vs. Cit(E), Trust, 29 Housing Colony Sanat Chandigarh. Nagar, Srinagar. [Pan: Aafta2878M] (Appellant) (Respendent)

12 do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of such trust or institution due to operation of sub-section (1) of section 13, then the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner may by order in writing cancel the registration of such trust or institution. However, the registration shall not be cancelled under the said subsection