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, (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, 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 PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

13(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, the AO was of the view that on account of Dr.R.S. Chahal’s relationship with the Society, undue benefit is being extended to him on account of higher payment of professional charges, (iv) the assessee has another women kinder hospital where it has suffered loss, and such loss

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 (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

M/S HERITAGE MARKETING,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Heritage Marketing Vs. The Ito Sco-64, F.F., Sector-20-C Ward-3(2), Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh Chandigarh

TDS with certain parties. The AO made addition of the said gross receipt of Rs. 3,13,542/- holding that the assessee had failed to explain the said difference. Penalty proceedings under section

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

TDS particulars was wholly unjustified. [Para 7] As regards second ground for reopening the assessment, the dividend income received during the year was claimed as exempt and the same was accepted in the assessment order passed under section 143(3). The reason for reopening the assessment was that in the absence of particulars it could not be said that

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

13 of the Act. Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 02/12/2022,\nthe assessee was asked to furnish Form No. 10, breakup of the\ndepreciation claim, details of accumulated fund and its\nutilization For the AY 2021-22. In response, the assessee had\nstated that it had not opted for accumulation of income for the\nFY 2020-21 relevant

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

13 of the Act. Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 02/12/2022,\nthe assessee was asked to furnish Form No. 10, breakup of the\ndepreciation claim, details of accumulated fund and its\nutilization For the AY 2021-22. In response, the assessee had\nstated that it had not opted for accumulation of income for the\nFY 2020-21 relevant

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

13 of the Act. Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 02/12/2022,\nthe assessee was asked to furnish Form No. 10, breakup of the\ndepreciation claim, details of accumulated fund and its\nutilization For the AY 2021-22. In response, the assessee had\nstated that it had not opted for accumulation of income for the\nFY 2020-21 relevant

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

13 of the Act. Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 02/12/2022,\nthe assessee was asked to furnish Form No. 10, breakup of the\ndepreciation claim, details of accumulated fund and its\nutilization For the AY 2021-22. In response, the assessee had\nstated that it had not opted for accumulation of income for the\nFY 2020-21 relevant