MESERS SHRI SWAMI SHANKARNATH PARVAT CHARITABLE AND WELFARE TRUST ,KAPURTHALA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

3) of section 12AA to cancel the registration so granted to the assessee society. However, in our considered view no adverse inference as regards the genuineness of the activities of the assessee society could have validly been drawn for the reason that it had purchased additional land for the furtherance of its objects. We shall now advert to the observations

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

SH. RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

SH. RAM SHARAN DASS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- (EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

M/S RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- (EXEMPTIONS)), AMRITSAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

3) and treated the status as AOP (Association of Person) as the registration was cancelled by the ld. CIT-1, Amritsar. The exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was duly rejected and added with total income. Being aggrieved on the order of the ld. AO the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The I.T.A. No. 103/Asr/2014

MESERS IMPROVEMENT TRUST ,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

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

depreciation the income amount of Rs.6,09,41,640/- was claimed as exempt u/s I.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2018 5 Assessment Year: 2014-15 11 of the Act. So, the total income of the assessee was Nil. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3). In the assessment the assessee was rejected for claimed of exemption u/s 11 and 12 by invoking section

TILLA BABA FARID RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE SOCIETY,FARIDKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 621/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation - which though would have to suitably quantified and also booked, but also for set off of capital expenditure as application of income, both in terms of settled law, which shall reduce the taxable income. In fact, even excluding section 11, the claim would stand, as it is only income thereafter that could be subject to application for charitable

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

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

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

11 Assessment Year: 2006-07 "is free to take action" against the co-owners, there was neither a "finding" against co-owners nor a "direction" to assess the co-owners within the meaning of s. 153(3)(ii) and the provision did not apply. Hon'ble Apex Court in Hope Textile vs. UOI (1994) 205 ITR 508(SC)" held thus

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

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

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this clause in the same or any other previous year;] 19. From the reading of Section 10(23C) (vi), it is amply clear that the university and educational institution that are solely for educational purposes and not for profit must

M/S FIL INDUSTRIES LTD,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FIL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. FIL INDUSTRIES LTD, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S FILL INDUSTRIES,, SRINAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee ground no 4 to 4

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

11 expenses on bank charges on bank guarantee, maintenance of two units u/s 80IB all the issues are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. So, the revenue has challenged this ground before the bench. The depreciation on capital subsidy section 43(1) Explanation-10 was upheldthe order of the ld. AO by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has challenged