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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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

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

35- 37) - ITO v. Human Resource Development and Management Trust: (2011) 47 SOT 85 (Cuttack) (refer para 23) 6. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that merely because payment is made to persons specified in section 13(3), it cannot be alleged that there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The onus

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 though both charitable and religious are not exclusively meant for a particular religious community" and, therefore Section 13 (1) (b) was not attracted. In the present case too, the factual finding of the ITAT is likewise. It has been found that the activities of the Assessee Society, though 35

MESERS PEER PANCHAL EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST ,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

35 of Paper book. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) has not pointed out any adversely on the object and activities of the Trust. The Ld. CIT(E) has to satisfy while granting the registration u/s 12AA of the Act that the objects of the assessee Trust are charitable in nature and the activities are genuine. The objects of the Trust

M/S. LEH NUTRITION PROJECT,,LEH LADKH vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35,623 3 Leh Nutrition Project v. DCIT 6. That Id CIT(A) has wrongly ignored that no addition was ever made in the case of appellant since inception as ‘NGO’ on this issue, by Income Tax Department. 7. That order of Ld AO & Ld CIT (A) is bad in law, as well as, on facts. 8. That appellant craves

MESERS BAJAJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 12 AA of the Income Tax Act however the registration was rejected by the CIT exemption on the ground that the assessee had received loans in ITA 517/Amr/2018 3 the previous years from various persons. However, in the return of income for the subsequent years the appellant society has shown the loan as donations towards the corpus fund

RAHUL KHINDRI,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

35 dated 19.08.2022 challenging the disallowance made by the Ld. ADIT (CPC). However, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order u/s 250 on 31.07.2023 dismissing the appeal. 8. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before ITAT Amritsar Bench vide from 36 on 30.05.2024 against the order of CIT (A) on the following grounds: - 9. SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF GROUND

VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT (280 ITR 357) and held\nthat mixing up of papers with other papers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Madras High\nCourt further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to advance substantial justice.\nTherefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI CHUNI LAL, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 131 of the IT Act, wherein he was again confronted with the various documents seized and cash found during the course of search and the consequent surrender made by him in respect of his two concerns and in response thereto, he again confirmed the surrender of undisclosed income amounting to Rs.1,21,43,210/- and Rs.1,35

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI HARMESH KUMAR, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 131 of the IT Act, wherein he was again confronted with the various documents seized and cash found during the course of search and the consequent surrender made by him in respect of his two concerns and in response thereto, he again confirmed the surrender of undisclosed income amounting to Rs.1,21,43,210/- and Rs.1,35