SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), (Revenue) dated 11/03/2014. As the issues involved in the abovementioned appeals are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a common order. We shall first advert to the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09, wherein the impugned order

GURU GOBIND SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER (EXEMPTION) , JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal i

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.61 & 62(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2011-12

Exemptions), Village and Post Office, Ward, Jalandhar. Bhaloor Moga. [PAN: AABTG 2865L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. P.N. Arora (Ld. Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. M.P. Singh (Ld. CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 19.02.2019 Date of pronouncement: 20.02.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant against the orders impugned herein dated 15.12.2017 passed

GURU GOBIND SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal i

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.61 & 62(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2011-12

Exemptions), Village and Post Office, Ward, Jalandhar. Bhaloor Moga. [PAN: AABTG 2865L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. P.N. Arora (Ld. Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. M.P. Singh (Ld. CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 19.02.2019 Date of pronouncement: 20.02.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant against the orders impugned herein dated 15.12.2017 passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR vs. DR SHYAM LAL THAPAR NURSING HOME, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in the instant case stands levied as the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, even

M/S. SHYAM LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER_II,, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in the instant case stands levied as the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, even

M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in the instant case stands levied as the assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, even

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

exempt u/s. 11. However, as the assessee was not registered u/s. 12AA at the relevant time, the same was denied, bringing the income of Rs.64,38,618/- to tax, also initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

exemption u/s 12A of the Act, if the assessee society is otherwise found eligible for this as per the relevant provisions.” 7. We find that the multiple objection was taken by the revenue related to claim of section 10(23C)(iiiad). The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities related

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

exemption u/s 12A of the Act, if the assessee society is otherwise found eligible for this as per the relevant provisions.” 7. We find that the multiple objection was taken by the revenue related to claim of section 10(23C)(iiiad). The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities related

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

exemption u/s 12A of the Act, if the assessee society is otherwise found eligible for this as per the relevant provisions.” 7. We find that the multiple objection was taken by the revenue related to claim of section 10(23C)(iiiad). The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities related

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

exemption u/s 12A of the Act, if the assessee society is otherwise found eligible for this as per the relevant provisions.” 7. We find that the multiple objection was taken by the revenue related to claim of section 10(23C)(iiiad). The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities related

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Exemptions), Jalandhar (in brevity ‘the AO’) order passed u/s 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are similar in nature and have common factual ground. So, ITA No. 60/Asr/2017 is taken as lead case. Further ITA No. 552/Asr/2018 & 553/Asr/2018 related to penalty

MESERS ARYA MODEL SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Exemptions), Jalandhar (in brevity ‘the AO’) order passed u/s 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are similar in nature and have common factual ground. So, ITA No. 60/Asr/2017 is taken as lead case. Further ITA No. 552/Asr/2018 & 553/Asr/2018 related to penalty

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Exemptions), Jalandhar (in brevity ‘the AO’) order passed u/s 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are similar in nature and have common factual ground. So, ITA No. 60/Asr/2017 is taken as lead case. Further ITA No. 552/Asr/2018 & 553/Asr/2018 related to penalty

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Exemptions), Jalandhar (in brevity ‘the AO’) order passed u/s 143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals are similar in nature and have common factual ground. So, ITA No. 60/Asr/2017 is taken as lead case. Further ITA No. 552/Asr/2018 & 553/Asr/2018 related to penalty

SHREE SHIRDI SAI SHAKTI PEETH TRUST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS,), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

271(1)(c) of the Act. Even the mind of the AO, while initiating the penalty proceedings, issuing notice u/s 274 of the Act and imposing the penalty itself, was not clear under which limb, the assessee had to reply and to defend its case, therefore we are of the view that under these circumstances, the penalty is not leviable

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

exemption u/s 10(23C) and under section 11 of the Act. So, the addition made needs to be deleted. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceedings by the AO under Section 271