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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

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

charitable trust or not, which has nothing to do with the fluctuations in the income year- after- year, will operate as res judicata and the same question cannot be re-agitatedsubsequently. 12 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Asr/2001 &Ors. Sadhu Singh Hamdard Trust v.Asstt. CIT& Ors. 12. In the following decisions, too, the Courts have held that though the doctrine

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

47 CCH 0790 DelTrib (27.05.2016) 10 I.T.A. No. 66/Asr/2017 i) Saint Kabir Educational Trust vs CIT 41 DTR 27 Asr Trib(placed on Page no. 22-26 of judgment set) j) CIT vs. IILM Foundation Academy as reported in 389 ITR 148 order dated 16.09.2016 (placed on Page no. 27-32 of judgment set) k) CIT vs Baba Deep Singh

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

47 ii) CCH 0197 (Ahd) Trib. SNDP Yogam V ADIT (Exemption) (2017) 186 TTJ 0277 iii) (Coch) 13 24. In response to the argument of the assessee, the ld. DR for the revenue had submitted orally as well as through the written submission had submitted as under :- “The appellant was taking shelter under the amended provisions of section 12AA

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

47,44,901/- as per income and expenditure account. 2. Thatthe Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the action oftheAssessing Officer in framing the assessment of the assessee in the status of AOP and taxing the excess of income over expenditure as per audited profit and loss account. I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 3 3. Thatthe

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

47,44,901/- as per income and expenditure account. 2. Thatthe Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the action oftheAssessing Officer in framing the assessment of the assessee in the status of AOP and taxing the excess of income over expenditure as per audited profit and loss account. I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 3 3. Thatthe

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

47,44,901/- as per income and expenditure account. 2. Thatthe Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the action oftheAssessing Officer in framing the assessment of the assessee in the status of AOP and taxing the excess of income over expenditure as per audited profit and loss account. I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 3 3. Thatthe

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)

47,69,960.80 39. As the predominant purpose and object of the Assessee are to manage the property, do charitable activities by way of imparting / running educational institutions, organizing lunger, medical camp, hospital etc.; therefore, the activities of the Assessee could not be termed as being done only for the benefit of particular community/ religion hence the Assessee was entitled

M/S. SHYAM LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER_II,, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

47 CCH 0197 (Ahd), is that as it has since been granted registration (i.e., on 20.01.2014 / copy on record), the assessment, setting aside the impugned order/s, be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the application of sections 11 and 12 of the Act in view of section 12A(2), which reads as under: ‘Conditions

M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

47 CCH 0197 (Ahd), is that as it has since been granted registration (i.e., on 20.01.2014 / copy on record), the assessment, setting aside the impugned order/s, be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the application of sections 11 and 12 of the Act in view of section 12A(2), which reads as under: ‘Conditions

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR vs. DR SHYAM LAL THAPAR NURSING HOME, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

47 CCH 0197 (Ahd), is that as it has since been granted registration (i.e., on 20.01.2014 / copy on record), the assessment, setting aside the impugned order/s, be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the application of sections 11 and 12 of the Act in view of section 12A(2), which reads as under: ‘Conditions