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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

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

d) of the Act ?" 2. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favour of the assessee on all aspects in the revenue’s appeal for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal affirmed conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations: "We have considered the rival submissions and the materials on the file. We are of the view

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

d) CIT vs. B.K.K Memorial Trust [2013] 29 taxmann.com 286 (Punjab and Haryana) (placed on Page no. 11-17 of judgment set) e) CIT vs. Niranjanbapu Education And Charitable Trust [2014] 52 taxmann.com 158 (Gujarat) f) Hardayal Charitable & Educational Trust vs. CIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 341 (Allahabad) g) DIT(E Zzz vx.) vs. The North Indian Association

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

D. R. Date of Hearing 06.07.2021 Date of 13.07.2021 Pronouncement ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar in respect of A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 That on the facts

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

Section 2(15) and the “Preservation of the Environment” had been inserted by Finance Act No. 2, 2009 w.e.f. ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 13 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT 01.04.2009 and, as such, the finding of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) that, it is not covered u/s 2(15) is not a correct finding. The Ld. Counsel also

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

Section 2(15) and the “Preservation of the Environment” had been inserted by Finance Act No. 2, 2009 w.e.f. ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 13 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT 01.04.2009 and, as such, the finding of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) that, it is not covered u/s 2(15) is not a correct finding. The Ld. Counsel also

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

d). There is a reply to that, which is placed at page 17 of the Paper Book, dated 23.07.1998 and the necessary documents as desired had been filed. e). Then again there is another letter, dated 12.08.1998 at page 18 of the paper book, confirming that the information had already been filed, which were again reiterated as per letter, dated

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

d). There is a reply to that, which is placed at page 17 of the Paper Book, dated 23.07.1998 and the necessary documents as desired had been filed. e). Then again there is another letter, dated 12.08.1998 at page 18 of the paper book, confirming that the information had already been filed, which were again reiterated as per letter, dated

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

d). There is a reply to that, which is placed at page 17 of the Paper Book, dated 23.07.1998 and the necessary documents as desired had been filed. e). Then again there is another letter, dated 12.08.1998 at page 18 of the paper book, confirming that the information had already been filed, which were again reiterated as per letter, dated

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

d), is irrelevant to the tax liability on such income. That is, the application of section 115BBC, prescribing tax liability with reference to anonymous donation, does not exclude the applicability of sections 11 and 12 of the Act qua such receipt (section 13(7)). In fact, the assessee’s claim of it being for corpus, and then including

M/S SANT SHRI MAHESH MUNI JI BOREWALE EDUCATIONAL WELFARE ,MOGA vs. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( EXAMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2016-17

d) The Franchisor shall, if it so desires, have the right to post staff (including Principal/Vice Principal) and faculty and other staff at the Franchisee's expenses to ensure proper functioning of the school by the Franchisee and to further ensure that the Franchisee maintains the confidentiality and secrecy of Franchisor’s proprietary material and Know How. (e) The Franchisee