DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning off of the funds

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Section 194I(a) of the Act. 7. On the other hand the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the TDS was duly deducted in respect of payments made by the Society to the sellers. However, in case of Smt. Parminder Kaur, whose Sale Deed was yet to be executed, the TDS was not deducted as the Society

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Section 194I(a) of the Act. 7. On the other hand the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the TDS was duly deducted in respect of payments made by the Society to the sellers. However, in case of Smt. Parminder Kaur, whose Sale Deed was yet to be executed, the TDS was not deducted as the Society

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

13) of section 80IA of the Act. The learned Pr. CIT has held that as per the aforesaid explanation to the section work contracts are not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) and apparently the project undertaken by the assessee is covered under the definition of "works contract". Moreover the Assessing Officer has not examined this aspect during

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

section 13(3) also\ndoes not seems to be unjustifiable as percentage of remuneration to members\nagainst the total revenue of the society is negligible and is paid for the services\nrendered by them towards achieving the object and goals of the society in the\nsmooth and effective manner. Further, there are many employees in the society\nwho are getting

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

13. Coming to Ground No.3, the AO made addition of Rs.9,39,450/- under Section 14A of the Act. The facts relating to such addition are that of examination of assessee's Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.03.2009, the AO found that the assessee had made investment of Rs.2,45,49,077/- in M/s Amravati Infrastructure Development Fund

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

13. Coming to Ground No.3, the AO made addition of Rs.9,39,450/- under Section 14A of the Act. The facts relating to such addition are that of examination of assessee's Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.03.2009, the AO found that the assessee had made investment of Rs.2,45,49,077/- in M/s Amravati Infrastructure Development Fund

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

13. Coming to Ground No.3, the AO made addition of Rs.9,39,450/- under Section 14A of the Act. The facts relating to such addition are that of examination of assessee's Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.03.2009, the AO found that the assessee had made investment of Rs.2,45,49,077/- in M/s Amravati Infrastructure Development Fund

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

13. Coming to Ground No.3, the AO made addition of Rs.9,39,450/- under Section 14A of the Act. The facts relating to such addition are that of examination of assessee's Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.03.2009, the AO found that the assessee had made investment of Rs.2,45,49,077/- in M/s Amravati Infrastructure Development Fund

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

13. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to file the sanction order/ site plan approval from the Competent Authorities to construct the buildings at Patiala, Sarnana and Zirakpur. The assessee has failed to file the site plan approval from the competent authorities. The assessee has only filed the copies of the site plan prepared

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

13. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to file the sanction order/ site plan approval from the Competent Authorities to construct the buildings at Patiala, Sarnana and Zirakpur. The assessee has failed to file the site plan approval from the competent authorities. The assessee has only filed the copies of the site plan prepared

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

13,79,552/- to M/s Shree Guru Teg Bahadur Truck Operator Union Bhawanigarh for transport of goods of M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. However, while making the payment or crediting the same to the account of the payee, the assessee has failed to deduct TDS @ 2% under Section