SHRI KALU MAL SHORIMAL NATHUMAL RANGWALA PRIVATE FAIMLY DHARAMNATH TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

charitable trust registered on 21.09.1942. After the amendment of Finance Act 2020 the assessee made an application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) before the ld. CIT(E). The ld. CIT(E) rejected the application applied for registration on the basis that one of the trust members is withdrawing salary Rs.12,60,000/- as allowance which contravening the section

GURU TEG BAHADUR EDUATIONAL TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 301/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2018-19

60,19,787/- respectively. Further, perusal of the Income & Expenditure account trust reveals that the net surplus obtained from the school is reflected as the income of the trust, showing the total income of the applicant trust at Rs. 24,51,278/-, Rs. 8 I.T.A. No. 301/Asr/2018 39,83,709/- and Rs. 44,82,863/- during

M/S MEHTA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

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

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

sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

60 days. The fact as stated above are true, and the said reasons for not filling appeal in time were beyond the control of the appellant.” 2.1 From the above, it is evident that there was late communication of the impugned order from the office of the CIT(A) although email of appellant was updated on department portal

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

60 days. The fact as stated above are true, and the said reasons for not filling appeal in time were beyond the control of the appellant.” 2.1 From the above, it is evident that there was late communication of the impugned order from the office of the CIT(A) although email of appellant was updated on department portal

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

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

60 days. The fact as stated above are true, and the said reasons for not filling appeal in time were beyond the control of the appellant.” 2.1 From the above, it is evident that there was late communication of the impugned order from the office of the CIT(A) although email of appellant was updated on department portal

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

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

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

trust and claim that the assessee had multiple activities so it not able to exempt u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) for educational purpose. Accordingly, the exemption was denied, and the net profit was taken as a taxable income of the assessee. The addition was made Rs. 60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia). But the assessee has claimed that

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

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

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

trust and claim that the assessee had multiple activities so it not able to exempt u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) for educational purpose. Accordingly, the exemption was denied, and the net profit was taken as a taxable income of the assessee. The addition was made Rs. 60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia). But the assessee has claimed that

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

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

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

trust and claim that the assessee had multiple activities so it not able to exempt u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) for educational purpose. Accordingly, the exemption was denied, and the net profit was taken as a taxable income of the assessee. The addition was made Rs. 60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia). But the assessee has claimed that

GURU NANAK DEV HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD, JALANDHAR

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

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

trust and claim that the assessee had multiple activities so it not able to exempt u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) for educational purpose. Accordingly, the exemption was denied, and the net profit was taken as a taxable income of the assessee. The addition was made Rs. 60,500/- for violation of section 40(a)(ia). But the assessee has claimed that

MAHARISHI DAYANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY ,PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS )CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

60 ITD 177. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Charitable Society engaged in providing education through its college namely Maharishi Dayanand Education Society and is duly registered under the ‘Societies Registration Act, 1860’ and registered number 1313 of 2023. The assessee has been consistently allowed exemptions u/s 10(23C)(iiiad

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

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

section 115BAC\nis denied to the assessee, then, in such a case, the\nassessee is entitled to avail deduction under chapter\nVI-A of the income tax act 1961.\n6.\nThat the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the\nform 10 IE and revised return filed on 25.03.2022\nwithout considering the fact that it was filed before\nthe

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

60,57,700/- as the additional undisclosed income over and above to the return of income despite having been shown in the return filed despite surrender during survey. 13. We find that the observations of the ld. CIT(A) as regards to double taxation of the same income based on the same documents found in the Chuni Lal Gaba

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

60,57,700/- as the additional undisclosed income over and above to the return of income despite having been shown in the return filed despite surrender during survey. 13. We find that the observations of the ld. CIT(A) as regards to double taxation of the same income based on the same documents found in the Chuni Lal Gaba

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

Trust, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Nehru Garden Road ,Jalandhar. Income Tax, Circle-III, [PAN: AAATS3278A] Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh.Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Respondent by Sh. RadheyShyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2022 ORDER Per: Bench: In the aforesaid appeals of the assessee for various Assessment Years, the grievance of the assessee is common

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

Trust, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Nehru Garden Road ,Jalandhar. Income Tax, Circle-III, [PAN: AAATS3278A] Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh.Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Respondent by Sh. RadheyShyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2022 ORDER Per: Bench: In the aforesaid appeals of the assessee for various Assessment Years, the grievance of the assessee is common

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

Trust, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Nehru Garden Road ,Jalandhar. Income Tax, Circle-III, [PAN: AAATS3278A] Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh.Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Respondent by Sh. RadheyShyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2022 ORDER Per: Bench: In the aforesaid appeals of the assessee for various Assessment Years, the grievance of the assessee is common

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

Trust, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Nehru Garden Road ,Jalandhar. Income Tax, Circle-III, [PAN: AAATS3278A] Jalandhar. (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh.Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Respondent by Sh. RadheyShyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2022 ORDER Per: Bench: In the aforesaid appeals of the assessee for various Assessment Years, the grievance of the assessee is common