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

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

AGRICULTURE SKILL COUNCIL OF INDIA,GURGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 80G. During the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) issued notices to the assessee seeking documents to verify the genuineness of activities and compliance with the objectives specified in its Memorandum of Association. Though partial replies were filed, upon examination of the submissions, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) found that the income of the assessee was largely derived

DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLY CORPN. LTD., SIRHIND

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. THE DISTT. MANAGER, FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAIN PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., BARNALA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (F&A) (PERSONAL RESPONSIBLE),SHIMLA vs. ITO (TDS), SHIMLA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY,ROPAR vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ITO (TDS-2), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB, SANGRUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB,

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section

ITO (TDS-2), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE GRAINS PROCUREMENT CORP. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

80G of the Act , it was apparent that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on the amount of money paid by him as donation as per the relevant provisions. That the use of expression ‘any sum paid’ contemplates payment of an amount of money and does not contemplate donation in kind. Therefore, the Tribunal held that even in section