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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

trust/ institution for exemption u/s 11 r.w.s 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whichfalls in the domain of the AO. Once the CIT has not doubted about the genuineness of the activities of the assesseenor doubted its charitable object, his powers under section 12AA end.” 8

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.

8 18. In our view, the above said wrong treatment of the admission fees under the head reserve and surplus, would not disentitle the assessee from getting the registration 12AA of the IT Act. As it is not the case of the CIT(E) that the activities of the assessee ceased to be charitable on account of the above said

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(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third proviso to section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across the statutory provisions. B. Authorities, corporations, or bodies established by statute B.1. The amounts or any money whatsoever charged by a statutory corporation, board or any other body set up by the state

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

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

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 of assessee]” 27. We have noted

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

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 of assessee]” 27. We have noted

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

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

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

8. Sections 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

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

13 to 22 of the paper book and it was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT that there has been amendment to section 12AA and as per clause (2) of section 12AA, which have placed in the paper book at page 21, where by way of clause (IA) read with clause (2) w.e.f. 1.6.1999, it had stated that