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

1 of the Paper Book, which certificate is dated 20.07.1998. Copy of the Trust I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 4 deed and rules and regulations have been enclosed in the Paper Book at pages 2 to 12. 2. The said society had moved an application for registration u/s 12A on the prescribed form 10A on 12.05.1998 as per copy

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

1 of the Paper Book, which certificate is dated 20.07.1998. Copy of the Trust I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 4 deed and rules and regulations have been enclosed in the Paper Book at pages 2 to 12. 2. The said society had moved an application for registration u/s 12A on the prescribed form 10A on 12.05.1998 as per copy

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

1 of the Paper Book, which certificate is dated 20.07.1998. Copy of the Trust I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 4 deed and rules and regulations have been enclosed in the Paper Book at pages 2 to 12. 2. The said society had moved an application for registration u/s 12A on the prescribed form 10A on 12.05.1998 as per copy

MUKTISAR WELFARE CLUB,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 182 & 235/Asr/2025 Assessment Year.: 2024-25 Muktisar Welfare Club, Near Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Manga Petrol Pump Ajit Muktsar. Cinema Road, C/O Rinku Pharma Muktsar, Muktsar, Punjab. [Pan: Aadam2794B] (Respondent) (Appellant)

36 are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(E) erred in rejecting final registration applied by the assessee u/s 12A(l)(ac)(iii). The rejection order passed by CIT (E) in form 10AD is against the facts and provisions of law. 2. That The CIT(E) has erred in dismissing application for registration merely

MUKTISAR WELFARE CLUB,MUKTSAR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR/, MUKTSAR,PUNJAB

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 182 & 235/Asr/2025 Assessment Year.: 2024-25 Muktisar Welfare Club, Near Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Manga Petrol Pump Ajit Muktsar. Cinema Road, C/O Rinku Pharma Muktsar, Muktsar, Punjab. [Pan: Aadam2794B] (Respondent) (Appellant)

36 are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(E) erred in rejecting final registration applied by the assessee u/s 12A(l)(ac)(iii). The rejection order passed by CIT (E) in form 10AD is against the facts and provisions of law. 2. That The CIT(E) has erred in dismissing application for registration merely

SHREE AMAR KSHATRIYA SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Charitable Trust, Raj Tilak Jammu. Bhawan Purani Mandi Jammu. Jammu, and Kashmir. [PAN:-AAHTS6094D] (Respondent) (Appellant) Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv. Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.04.025 Date of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M. : This appeal filed by assessee against order of Ld. JCIT (A)- 1, Vadodara

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

1)(c) of the Act, we are of the view that the conditions as provided in Section 13 or elsewhere are to be seen by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings on yearly basis and not by the CIT (Appeals) while granting registration under Section 12A of the Act. 8. Sections 13 comes into play

DATA SHER SINGH SALARIA CHARITABLE TRUST,DATA SHER SINGH SALARIA CHARIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.225 & 551/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: N/A Data Sher Singh Salaria Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Charitable Trust, Sohagpur, Jammu. Arnia, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Aadtd3226G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

36 are as follows: “1. That the Learned C.I.T. (Exemptions), Chandigarh, has erred on facts as well as on law in passing order u/s 12AA of the IT Act, I.T.A. No.225 & 551/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: N/A 1961, in which application for registration u/s 12AA has been rejected without any rhyme & reason. 2. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Exemptions), Chandigarh, rejected

DATA SHER SINGH SALARIA CHARITABLE TRUST,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAMMU

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.225 & 551/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: N/A Data Sher Singh Salaria Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Charitable Trust, Sohagpur, Jammu. Arnia, Jammu & Kashmir. [Pan:-Aadtd3226G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

36 are as follows: “1. That the Learned C.I.T. (Exemptions), Chandigarh, has erred on facts as well as on law in passing order u/s 12AA of the IT Act, I.T.A. No.225 & 551/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: N/A 1961, in which application for registration u/s 12AA has been rejected without any rhyme & reason. 2. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Exemptions), Chandigarh, rejected

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

DAWAT E ISLAMI ANANTNAG,ANANTNAG vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 13(1)(b) of the Act 61. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: I.T.A. No. 252/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: N/A “1. The Ld. A.O. has erred on facts and in law in not considering that the appellant trust is a public charitable

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

36 on 30.05.2024 against the order of CIT (A) on the following grounds: - 9. SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO 1 Ground No 1 That the Ld. CIT(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

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the CIT(Exemptions) has grossly erred in denying registration to the assessee trust u/s 12AA of the Income tax act, 1961 as claimed. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) has not considered completely the information/ evidence brought on record, in correct perspectives while denying the Registration

THE OXFORD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY,FARIDKOT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 583/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: N/A M/S The Oxford Educational & Vs. Cit(E), Charitable Society (Oxbridge Chandigarh. World School, Kotkapura) Hira Singh Nagar, Kotkapura, Faridkot (Punjab) [Pan: Aabtt6670Q] (Appellant) (Respendent)

charitable, are not sufficient for granting registration to the society under Section 12AA of the Act until and unless the authority, who grants the registration, satisfies himself that the activities of the trust or institution are genuine or not. To satisfy himself he can make such inquiry as he deem necessary. There is no bar under any provision

GARDEX HUMAN FOUNDATION ,KARTAR PUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing)

36 are as below: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) was absolutely wrong and unjustified as erred both on facts and in law to have refused to I.T.A. No. 183 & 184/Asr/2025 2 Assessment Year: 2024-25 grant due registration of the Trust as filed in form 10AB u/s 12A(l)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax, disregarding the fact that

GARDEX HUMAN FOUNDATION,KARTAR PUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing)

36 are as below: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) was absolutely wrong and unjustified as erred both on facts and in law to have refused to I.T.A. No. 183 & 184/Asr/2025 2 Assessment Year: 2024-25 grant due registration of the Trust as filed in form 10AB u/s 12A(l)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax, disregarding the fact that

C-DOT FORUM ,LUDHIANA vs. THE CIT EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 115 & 116/Asr/2025 Assessment Year.: 2022-23 C-Dot Forum, 644 Phase-1, Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Model Town Bathinda. Chandigarh. [Pan: Aaeac3681J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

36 are as follows: I.T.A. No. 115 & 116/Asr/2025 Assessment Year.: 2022-23 2 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Chandigarh, has eared in Law and on facts, in rejecting the application in form 10AB U/S 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on non- satisfaction of genuineness of the activities of the assessee society, only based on her presumptions

SCHOOL MANAGING SOCIETY CAPT. GURCHARAN SINGH,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 562 & 563/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 & 2024-25 School Managing Society Capt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Gurcharan Singh Kapurthala, Ito (E) Ward, Jalandhar. Punjab. [Pan:-Aadts4577P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

36 are as follows: “1 That the CIT(A) was not justified in not allowing the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(23c) (iiiad) I.T.A. Nos. 562 and 563/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 and 2024-25 2 2 That CIT(A) failed to appreciate while disallowing the 0 exemption that if the assessee is entitled to exemption in some