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 13

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 13

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 13

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 13

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 13

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 13

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 13

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 13

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 13

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 13

MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

Charitable or religious trust - Registration procedure - Assessment year 201011 - Whether while examining application seeking registration under section 12AA, manner of application of funds of trust do not fall within purview of Commissioner; Commissioner should only satisfy himself about genuineness of aims and objects of trust/institution and genuineness of its activities as enumerated in clause (b) of sub-section (1

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

13 Santosh Foundation v. CIT 9. Lastly, we would like to draw your Honor’s attention on the distinguishing facts of the case of the Appellant with the judgment of Hon’ble Bench in case of Goenka Charitable Trust vs. CIT(Ex.), Chandigarh as reported in 89 taxmann.com311 (Amritsar Trib) (2018) as tabulated below: Facts of Goenka Charitable Trust 1

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

13. “CIT-1, Chandigarh vs. Sri Guru Gorakh Nath Charitable Educational Society”, considering judgment of the Division Bench in the case of “Pinegrove International Charitable Trust (supra)”, had answered the question that Whether power of Commissioner to look into objects of society and genuineness of same could not be doubted when basis was of non-supply of information

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

13, along with sections 10 to 10C (and sections 13A and 13B, which relate to political parties) comprise Chapter III of the Act titled ‘Incomes which do not form part of the total income’. Section 11 provides for exemption in respect of income from property held under trust by a charitable or religious trust/institution for its objects. Section 11(1

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)

charitable purposes, since it was for the benefit of only one religious community the provision of Section 13 (1) (b) would apply to deny it exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The above conclusion was legally flawed. It was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dawoodi Bohra Jamat (supra) which held that even where the trust

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)

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, if the aforesaid trust or institution proves that there was a reasonable cause for the activities to be carried out in the said manner

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

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

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