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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

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

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

90 ITR (Trib) 0394 (Amritsar)has held that in the absence of any comparable instance of rendering the similar services/supply of goods, it would not be permissible to disallow the expenditure under Section 40A(2). 12. Burden of proof lies on the Revenue to prove that the salary/rental payments made were excessive/unreasonable and that provisions of section 13 apply: Section

M/S SANT BABA BHAG SINGH MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 432/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

charitable purposes in terms of section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 3.3 Our first observation is that Rs.2.96 lacs, admittedly received as Gupt Daan, i.e., donations from undisclosed source/s, is clearly covered u/s. 115BBC. The Assessing Officers’ (AO’s) treating it as such has not been disputed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). The AO, however

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

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

section 12AA pertains to the registration of the Trust and not to assess of what a trust has actually done and the term activities in the provision includes proposed activities. That is to say, the registering authority is bound to consider whether the objects of the Trust are genuinely charitable in nature and whether the activities which the trust proposed

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/ society/ formation document, it isthe substance, i.e, for what purposes, the funds were actually used ( whether funds were used solely and exclusively for the benefit of the particular religious community or not) . 31. Undoubtedly, the Lower Authorities while rejecting the application for registration of the Assessee U/s 80G (5)(iii) of the Act had wrongly swayed with the preamble

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)

section 2(15) of the Act 61, for which registration is being sought by the society and secondly whether the assessee in the instant case has violated the (Professional Conduct , Etiquette and ethics) Regulations 2002 prescribed by The Medical council of India ( MCI ) regulations (2002), which prohibits doctors from accepting freebies which such as expenses for travel , hospitality, participation

M/S GREEN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BATHINDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXAMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 684/Asr/2017

charitable purpose’. It is clearly the case that running a playschool doesn't satisfy the tenets laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Lok Sikshan Sansthan as to what comprises 'education'. Accordingly, the application under section 12A for grant of registration is rejected.’ 2.2 A perusal of the impugned order reveals the following

THE ASSOCATION OF COLON AND RECTAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 474 & 475/Asr/2024 The Association Of Colon & बनाम The Cit Rectal Surgeons Of India, Exemption, 408A, Kapurthala Road, Chandigarh Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakat9866E अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite, Cit Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeals In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 21.03.2024, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

90,00/- and Rs.9,01,935/- from pharma company Abbot India. This has to be seen in the context that the medical Council of India in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 474- 475-Asr-2024 The Association of Colon and Rectal Surgeons of India, Jalandhar 7 2002 (the Regulations

THE ASSOCIATION OF COLON AND RECTAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. CIT EXEMPTION,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 474 & 475/Asr/2024 The Association Of Colon & बनाम The Cit Rectal Surgeons Of India, Exemption, 408A, Kapurthala Road, Chandigarh Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakat9866E अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite, Cit Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeals In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 21.03.2024, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

90,00/- and Rs.9,01,935/- from pharma company Abbot India. This has to be seen in the context that the medical Council of India in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 474- 475-Asr-2024 The Association of Colon and Rectal Surgeons of India, Jalandhar 7 2002 (the Regulations