SARFROSH FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 and public and charitable purposes and income shall be applied for the same and accumulated in India wholly for CSR Activities, public & charitable purposes. 6.2 It is pertinent to mention here the trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

Charitable Trust. 8.1 We find that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), so, the ground of the revenue is dismissed. In the result, the grounds of the revenue 1 to 5 are dismissed. Ground No. 6 is general in nature. ITA 89/Asr/2020 is mutatis mutandis applicable to ITA Nos. 87,88 & 90/Asr/2020 and follow

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

Charitable Trust. 8.1 We find that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), so, the ground of the revenue is dismissed. In the result, the grounds of the revenue 1 to 5 are dismissed. Ground No. 6 is general in nature. ITA 89/Asr/2020 is mutatis mutandis applicable to ITA Nos. 87,88 & 90/Asr/2020 and follow

SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

Charitable Trust. 8.1 We find that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), so, the ground of the revenue is dismissed. In the result, the grounds of the revenue 1 to 5 are dismissed. Ground No. 6 is general in nature. ITA 89/Asr/2020 is mutatis mutandis applicable to ITA Nos. 87,88 & 90/Asr/2020 and follow

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI BHAVNOOR SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

Charitable Trust. 8.1 We find that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), so, the ground of the revenue is dismissed. In the result, the grounds of the revenue 1 to 5 are dismissed. Ground No. 6 is general in nature. ITA 89/Asr/2020 is mutatis mutandis applicable to ITA Nos. 87,88 & 90/Asr/2020 and follow

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

Charitable Trust. 8.1 We find that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), so, the ground of the revenue is dismissed. In the result, the grounds of the revenue 1 to 5 are dismissed. Ground No. 6 is general in nature. ITA 89/Asr/2020 is mutatis mutandis applicable to ITA Nos. 87,88 & 90/Asr/2020 and follow

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR vs. SHRI JATINDER SINGH BEDI , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue, ITA No 90/Asr/2020 is dismissed

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

Charitable Trust. 8.1 We find that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), so, the ground of the revenue is dismissed. In the result, the grounds of the revenue 1 to 5 are dismissed. Ground No. 6 is general in nature. ITA 89/Asr/2020 is mutatis mutandis applicable to ITA Nos. 87,88 & 90/Asr/2020 and follow

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

135 taxmann.com 336 the Kolkata – Tribunal , deleted the demand raised by Income Tax Authorities for levying late fee under section 234E for period prior to 1-6-2015 by observing vide para 3 and 6 as under: 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

135 taxmann.com 336 the Kolkata – Tribunal , deleted the demand raised by Income Tax Authorities for levying late fee under section 234E for period prior to 1-6-2015 by observing vide para 3 and 6 as under: 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

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

135 taxmann.com 336 the Kolkata – Tribunal , deleted the demand raised by Income Tax Authorities for levying late fee under section 234E for period prior to 1-6-2015 by observing vide para 3 and 6 as under: 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel

S.M.D.R.S.D COLLEGIATE SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ( RUN),PATHANKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T6AX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

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

Charitable Trust Vs. CIT-II Amritsar (ITA No 594 (ASR) 2013), he held that the benefit of registration under section 12AA of the Act, cannot be granted to a trust controlled by a single family. The powers of keeping the society properties and rights in own hands of the family invite the coverage of the aforementioned decision. Accordingly, he held

S.M.D.R.S.D COLLAGE OF EDUCATION( RUN),PATHANKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

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

Charitable Trust Vs. CIT-II Amritsar (ITA No 594 (ASR) 2013), he held that the benefit of registration under section 12AA of the Act, cannot be granted to a trust controlled by a single family. The powers of keeping the society properties and rights in own hands of the family invite the coverage of the aforementioned decision. Accordingly, he held