BHAG KAUR AND HARNAM SINGH ZORIA,DASUYA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

charitable cum religious trust. Therefore, in the present case, the corpus fund shown by the applicant on record during FY 2018-19is the income of the applicant and, thus, the trust/society becomes liable to pay tax for that year. Further, the ITR for A.Y. 2019-20 corresponding to F.Y. 2018-19 filed by the applicant does not include

SANT MAHESH MUNI JI BOREWALE WELFARE SOCIETY,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS) WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

trust under s. 11(1)(a) of the Act. The contention of the Ld AR that expenditure incurred in the earlier year can be met out of the income of the subsequent year and utilization of 6 such income for meeting the expenditure of the earlier year, would amount to such income being applied for charitable or religious purposes

M/S MANAGING COMMITTEE SWAMI PREMANAND MAHAVIDALYA,HOSHIARPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

58,543/-(55%) The society has claimed itself to be an institution substantially financed by the Government and therefore has not filed its return of income “ As per Rule 2BBB (inserted w.e.f 12 Dec. 2014) of Income tax Rules 1962, for the purses of sub- clauses (iiiab) and (iiiac) of clause (23C)of section 10, any university or other educational

NAVJEEVAN CHARITABLE SOCIETY FOR INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT ,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHINANA

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

charitable purpose. However, there was no observation/findings made by the Ld. PCIT in respect of the 3rd issue raised regardingthe source of corpus donation received in cash, in order to hold the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT has conveniently over looked the statuary provision