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

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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of provisions of section

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

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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of 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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of 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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of 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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of 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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of 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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of 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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of 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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of provisions of section

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

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

H) 13. In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlierand subsequent assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. Re: Alleged violation of provisions of section

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

H. No. 2, Friends Enclave, (Exemptions), Chandigarh Near Star Resorts, Bye Pass Road, Rampura Phul. [PAN: AAQTS1243M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.09.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against

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

13 Assessment Year: 2014-15 be said to be involved in advancement of objects of general public utility. However, if such organisations provide additional services such as courses meant to skill personnel, providing private rental spaces in fairs or trade shows, consulting services, etc. then income or receipts from such activities, would be business or commercial in nature. In that

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

section 12AA of the Act cannot be rejected. The defects as found by the CIT cannot be base for rejecting the application of the Assessee. 3. Further the following points are worth to consider: a) The CIT has not given any observation regarding the ongoing School/Colleges for past many years. b) The CIT has not given any comment regarding

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

13 of the income tax Act in the light of the insertion of the proviso to section 12 A of the income tax Act more particularly when the assessee was granted the registration on 25 September 2009, and prior thereto the assessee was a having the approval under section 10(23) of the Act. 3 Whether the case is required

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

charitable purposes” as defined u/s 2(`15) of the Act.”. So, CIT(E) rejected the application by citing his inability to deviate from earlier decision and did not discuss the merits of the case. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before ITAT, vide appeal no. 501/Asr/2019. Hearing in this case was fixed for first time on 05.02.2020. During the hearing

BAHADUR KE TEXTILES & KNITWEAR ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

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

charitable purposes” as defined u/s 2(`15) of the Act.”. So, CIT(E) rejected the application by citing his inability to deviate from earlier decision and did not discuss the merits of the case. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before ITAT, vide appeal no. 501/Asr/2019. Hearing in this case was fixed for first time on 05.02.2020. During the hearing

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

2), albeit qua registered entities and, accordingly, it, as well as section 11(3)(d), have to be read in this context. Further, even assuming that the funds are indeed being accumulated for such a purpose, the same could, w.e.f. 01/4/2003, i.e., AY 2003-04, no longer regarded as for charitable purpose. In other words, can no longer be regarded

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

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

13 comes into play at the time of granting exemption under Section 11 of the Act and not at the time of granting registration under Section 12A of the Act. The only two requirements as stated hereinabove while granting registration under Section 12A of the Act, are with respect to the charitable nature of the objects of the assessee

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

trusts, general Public for running/development of school(s) or college(s) h) The society shall have power to receive, hold and possess any property including securities or any kind and to construct and maintain any building, to manage, transfer or otherwise dispose of or deal in any property of school or society and to enter into contract