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 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

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

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 13 of the Act by providing benefit to persons specified in sub-section (3). 2. On appeal, the CIT(A)upheld the order of the assessing officer and confirmed the denial of exemption claimed

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

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

12 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra). Likewise, the denial of benefit under section 10(46) after 1-4-2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that it is set up for a charitable purpose and seeking exemption under section 10(23C) or other provisions

BAHUDER KE TEXTILES AND KNITWEARS ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION ) , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

2(15), read with section 13(8) and, accordingly, he denied exemption as provided under sections 11 and 12 - Whether since dominant object was not only preservation of environment but one of general public utility, object of assessee was charitable in nature, and, thus, assessee was entitled to seek exemption under section 11 - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour