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

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

Charitable Trust and Ors vs Union of India and Ors reported in 327 ITR 73. ITA 596/Amr/2016 9 10. Decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT(E) Chandigarh vs. Shree Mahavir Jain Society (Regd.) in Appeal No. 231 of 2016 order dated 11/09/2017. 17. On the contrary, the learned D.R. for the revenue had submitted that

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

Charitable Trust, he pleaded that the ratio of the said order which is opposite in the dispute before us, may be respectfully followed relevant para 19 to 21 of this order are extract below: “19. Now the next question before us is that whether Tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB

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

Charitable Trust, he pleaded that the ratio of the said order which is opposite in the dispute before us, may be respectfully followed relevant para 19 to 21 of this order are extract below: “19. Now the next question before us is that whether Tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB

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

charitable activities. However, the surplus from such activities is taxable in the hands of the 4 Leh Nutrition Project v. DCIT appellant as the appellant has not been registered u/s 12A of the Act as required by the provisions of the Income Tax Act and as such the income of the appellant is taxable. 6. The Ld. AR has filed

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

ARYA SHIKSHA MANDAL,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WAD ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 126/Asr/2022 is allowed

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

trust and for this assessment year the turnover is below Rs.1 crore. The assessee also registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. During processing of the return the ld. AO rejected the assessee’s claim u/s 11. The same issue was agitated before

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

Charitable Trust v. CIT (in WP(C) 12347 of 2005 dated 9/5/2006), where the same contention, i.e., of the non- passing of orders (in that case u/s. 12AA as well as s. 80G(5) of the Act) within the stipulated time period of six months as amounting to a deemed acceptance of the relevant application/s, was negatived

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

Charitable Trust v. CIT (in WP(C) 12347 of 2005 dated 9/5/2006), where the same contention, i.e., of the non- passing of orders (in that case u/s. 12AA as well as s. 80G(5) of the Act) within the stipulated time period of six months as amounting to a deemed acceptance of the relevant application/s, was negatived

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

65,000 pertaining to the property purchased by his wife, on account of confused state of mind—Admissions are not conclusive proof of matter—A party is entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him was, in fact, not correct and true— Assessee has been able to prove with the help of his cash flow statement that

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

65,000 pertaining to the property purchased by his wife, on account of confused state of mind—Admissions are not conclusive proof of matter—A party is entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him was, in fact, not correct and true— Assessee has been able to prove with the help of his cash flow statement that

UNICOM FOUNDATION,JALANDHAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 605 & 29/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A Unicom Foundation, Sco, 4, 1St Vs. Cit (Exemption), Floor, Puda Complex Near Chandigarh. Dainik Bhasker Office, Jalandhar, Punjab. [Pan:-Aaaau8979M] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. J.S. Bhasin, Adv. Mrs. Namita Pandey, Cit Dr. Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2026

65,397/- was received by it on 06.09.2023 which was again transferred to the same entity on 11.09.2023. No explanation as to how this transfer would tantamount to charity was provided by the applicant. Even assuming that the said entity is a charitable institution, it is disconcerting that 98% of the CSR funds were transferred to this entity. Smaller debits

UNI COM FOUNDATION,JALANDHAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 605 & 29/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A Unicom Foundation, Sco, 4, 1St Vs. Cit (Exemption), Floor, Puda Complex Near Chandigarh. Dainik Bhasker Office, Jalandhar, Punjab. [Pan:-Aaaau8979M] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. J.S. Bhasin, Adv. Mrs. Namita Pandey, Cit Dr. Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2026

65,397/- was received by it on 06.09.2023 which was again transferred to the same entity on 11.09.2023. No explanation as to how this transfer would tantamount to charity was provided by the applicant. Even assuming that the said entity is a charitable institution, it is disconcerting that 98% of the CSR funds were transferred to this entity. Smaller debits