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

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

section 13(3)(c) are not applicable to the facts of present case. 9. The mandate under Section11(1)(a) of the Act provides that the income derived from the property held in trust wholly for charitable

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

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

section 13(3)(c) are not applicable to the facts of present case. 9. The mandate under Section11(1)(a) of the Act provides that the income derived from the property held in trust wholly for charitable

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

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

section 13(3)(c) are not applicable to the facts of present case. 9. The mandate under Section11(1)(a) of the Act provides that the income derived from the property held in trust wholly for charitable

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

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

section 13(3)(c) are not applicable to the facts of present case. 9. The mandate under Section11(1)(a) of the Act provides that the income derived from the property held in trust wholly for charitable

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

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

section 13(3)(c) are not applicable to the facts of present case. 9. The mandate under Section11(1)(a) of the Act provides that the income derived from the property held in trust wholly for charitable

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

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

section 13(3)(c) are not applicable to the facts of present case. 9. The mandate under Section11(1)(a) of the Act provides that the income derived from the property held in trust wholly for charitable

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

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

section 13(3)(c) are not applicable to the facts of present case. 9. The mandate under Section11(1)(a) of the Act provides that the income derived from the property held in trust wholly for charitable

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

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

section 13(3)(c) are not applicable to the facts of present case. 9. The mandate under Section11(1)(a) of the Act provides that the income derived from the property held in trust wholly for charitable

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

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

section 13(3)(c) are not applicable to the facts of present case. 9. The mandate under Section11(1)(a) of the Act provides that the income derived from the property held in trust wholly for charitable

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.

9 whether the activities which the Trust proposed to carry on are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the Trust. In contrast, the position would be different where the Commissioner proposes to cancel the registration of a Trust under sub-section (3) of section 12AA of the Act. There the Commissioner would

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

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

MEASAGE GRAM SEWA AND VIKLANG SHAYTA SANSTHA REGD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

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

charitable or religious trust or institution to file the auditor's report along with the return of total income, where such trust or institution claims exemption under Sections 11 and 12. However, in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report the exemption as available to such trust under

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)

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. I may rely upon following

M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

9 Sant Baba Bhag Singh M. C. Society v. Dy. CIT return for the earlier years would not therefore bar the AO, whose powers in the matter of assessment are plenary, to make an assessment in accordance with law, consistent with the facts as found. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions, inter alia, in New Jehangir

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