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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

b) CIT vs. Surya Educational & Charitable Trust [2011] 15 taxmann.com 123 (Punjab and Haryana) (placed on Page no. 6-8 of judgment set) c) CIT vs. Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust [2014] 42 taxmann.com 17 (Punjab & Haryana) (placed on Page no. 9-10 of judgment set) d) CIT vs. B.K.K Memorial Trust [2013] 29 taxmann.com 286 (Punjab and Haryana

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

b) Where the total income of the trust or institution as computed under this Act without giving effect to the provisions of section 11 and section 12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax in any previous year, the accounts of the trust or institution for that year have been audited by an accountant as defined

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

b) of sub- section (1) shall be passed before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was received under clause (a) [or clause (aa) [or clause (ab)] of sub-section (1)] of section 12A.] 18. Based on the above said amendment, it was submitted that it was incumbent upon the lower authorities

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

b) of sub- section (1) shall be passed before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was received under clause (a) [or clause (aa) [or clause (ab)] of sub-section (1)] of section 12A.] 18. Based on the above said amendment, it was submitted that it was incumbent upon the lower authorities

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

b) of sub- section (1) shall be passed before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was received under clause (a) [or clause (aa) [or clause (ab)] of sub-section (1)] of section 12A.] 18. Based on the above said amendment, it was submitted that it was incumbent upon the lower authorities

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

b) Cyberstar Educational Society vs. CIT (Exemptions) in ITA No. 795/ASR/2017 ASR-Trib (placed at Page No. 49-54 ofJudgment Set) c) CIT(Exemption)vs. Shri Shirdi Sai Darbar Charitable Trust (Dharmshala), Barnala [2017] 81 taxmann.com 49 (Punjab and Haryana) (placed at Page No. 55-58 of Judgment Set) d) CIT vs. Surya Educational 8t Charitable Trust [2011] 15 taxmann.com

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

12 inserting sub-section (5B) in section 80G and would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Taking into account the amendment made by Finance Act, 1999 by inserting sub section (5B) to section 80G, it can be said that sub-section (5B) provides a tolerance limit of 5% of total Income which could be applied

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)

Charitable Trust is a trust solely created for imparting education as per the relevant clause of the Deed for creation of the Trust. The appellant had applied for Registration U/S 12AA of the Income Tax Act 1961 before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Chandigarh which has been denied. Then the appellant 4 I.T.A. No. 140/Asr/2020 appealed to the Honorable