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 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

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

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

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 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

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

b) CIT vs. Surya Educational & Charitable Trust [2011] 15 taxmann.com 123 (Punjab and Haryana) c) CIT vs. Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust [2014] 42 taxmann.com 17 (Punjab & Haryana) (Copy of the order is placed at Page No. 260 to 261 of Paper Book –II) d) CIT vs. B.K.K Memorial Trust [2013] 29 taxmann.com 286 (Punjab and Haryana) e) Saint

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

b) CIT vs. Surya Educational & Charitable Trust [2011] 15 taxmann.com 123 (Punjab and Haryana) c) CIT vs. Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust [2014] 42 taxmann.com 17 (Punjab & Haryana) (Copy of the order is placed at Page No. 260 to 261 of Paper Book –II) d) CIT vs. B.K.K Memorial Trust [2013] 29 taxmann.com 286 (Punjab and Haryana) e) Saint

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

8. The same view has been taken in the case of Lakha Singh Charitable Trust by the Amritsar Tribunal. Reliance is also being placed earlier judgment of ‘Amritsar Bench’, it has been held that if the registration has been granted for any of the year, then it is deemed to be registered for any other year, for which, the proceedings

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

8. The same view has been taken in the case of Lakha Singh Charitable Trust by the Amritsar Tribunal. Reliance is also being placed earlier judgment of ‘Amritsar Bench’, it has been held that if the registration has been granted for any of the year, then it is deemed to be registered for any other year, for which, the proceedings

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

8. The same view has been taken in the case of Lakha Singh Charitable Trust by the Amritsar Tribunal. Reliance is also being placed earlier judgment of ‘Amritsar Bench’, it has been held that if the registration has been granted for any of the year, then it is deemed to be registered for any other year, for which, the proceedings

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)

trust v/s Union of India (2008) 307 ITR 226 (RAJ.) f. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Social Service Centre (2001) 250 ITR 39 (AP) g. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam vs CCIT (2001) 251 ITR 849 (AP)“ 6. Registration u/s 12AA: An issue raised by the Revenue during the course of argument. a. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that

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

8 Assessment Year: 2014-15 in commercial activities. However, sub-clause (b) of section 10(46) imposes such a bar, and the concerned body cannot claim tax exemption if it engages in commercial activity. 188. The manner in which GPU charities has been dealt with under the definition clause, i.e., section 2(15), indicates that even though trading or commercial