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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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

J. Mehta Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC) b. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that in the present case, there is no allegation that the payment made to specified persons were unreasonable or excessive, therefore, it is respectfully submitted, that it cannot result in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12

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

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 Educational Society in ITA No. 881 of 2010 (P&H HC) (placed on Page no. 33-37 of judgment set) l) American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute vs. CBDT

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

2(15) is not a correct finding. The Ld. Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. reported in (2020) 120 taxmann.com 126 (Guj.) for the said preposition, that if the dominant object was for ‘Preservation of Environment’, the object of the assessee was ‘charitable in nature

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

2(15) is not a correct finding. The Ld. Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. reported in (2020) 120 taxmann.com 126 (Guj.) for the said preposition, that if the dominant object was for ‘Preservation of Environment’, the object of the assessee was ‘charitable in nature

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

J. S. Bhasin (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27.02.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar ‘(CITA)’ for short) dated 10.04.2017, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting its’ assessment under section

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

j. A note on activities of the society. k. Details of corpus fund and whether the same are with any written specific directions. 5 l. Details regarding charitable activities being conducted by the society clarifying the specific limb us 2(15) of the I.T.Act under which the activity is being pursued. m. Receipts and payment accounts of the society

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

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI DHARAM SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

J. speaking for the Court are relevant: - " ....................... The point for decision is whether there arises out of the order of the Tribunal any question which can be the subject of reference under section 66 (1) of the Act Under that section, it is only a question of law that can be referred for decision of the Court

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI HIMMAT SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

J. speaking for the Court are relevant: - " ....................... The point for decision is whether there arises out of the order of the Tribunal any question which can be the subject of reference under section 66 (1) of the Act Under that section, it is only a question of law that can be referred for decision of the Court