CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

property of the trust for direct or indirect benefit to the persons mentioned u/s 13(3) of the Act. 5.9 Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that conspectus of decisions on the subject provides that at the time of granting registration under section 12AA(1) of the Act, only the objects and purposes are required to be seen

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

property of the trust for direct or indirect benefit to the persons mentioned u/s 13(3) of the Act. 5.9 Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that conspectus of decisions on the subject provides that at the time of granting registration under section 12AA(1) of the Act, only the objects and purposes are required to be seen

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house at B-101, Lagoon Residential\nApartment, Ambience Island, NH-08, Gurgaon for Rs.2,15,90,000/-\nusing the funds of the assessee stating that these allegations have not\nled to any additions or disallowance and there is no need to discuss this\nissue, whereas it is a ground for proving non-charitable object of the\nassessee?\nvii)\nWhether

DCIT vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

property; (c) ………….. (d) ………….. (1A) …………. (2) Where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that sub-section is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year but is accumulated

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

property; (c) ………….. (d) ………….. (1A) …………. (2) Where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that sub-section is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year but is accumulated

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

property; (c) ………….. (d) ………….. (1A) …………. (2) Where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that sub-section is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year but is accumulated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

property; (c) ………….. (d) ………….. (1A) …………. (2) Where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that sub-section is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year but is accumulated

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

property held under a trust does not enure for the benefit of public, and it has been used for the benefit of certain individuals who happen to be relatives of the trustee, then such receipt will not qualify for exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. In other words, benefit of section 11 and 12 would not available

SHRI ISHWAR HARI CHARITABLE TRUST,SANGRUR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

charitable objects of the assessee Trust. 8. On the other hand ld. CIT DR submitted that some of the objectives of the assessee are of religious nature, therefore, ld. CIT (E) has rightly registered it as a Religious Trust. 9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The Trust Deed dated 05.03.2018 is placed

SHRI ISHWAR HARI CHARITABLE TRUST,SNAGRUR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

charitable objects of the\nassessee Trust.\n8. On the other hand ld. CIT DR submitted that some of\nthe objectives of the assessee are of religious nature,\ntherefore, 1d. CIT (E) has rightly registered it as a Religious\nTrust.\n9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone\nthrough the record carefully.\nThe Trust Deed dated\n05.03.2018 is placed

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

property which is necessary for the attainment of object of society.\nIn this regard it is submitted that Hon'ble CIT(A) allowed this ground of appeal for\nstatistical purpose for the reason that assessee submitted documents which were\nnot filed with Ld. AO.\nSir, it is incorrect that assessee did not file documents with Ld. AO. In order

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST KARTARPUR, KARTARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the intention and purpose behind the omission of section 10(20A) w.e.f. 04.04.2003 which earlier has expressly

DCIT, C-1 (EXPEMTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

properties on commercial lines) has become the predominant activity to the detriment of the main mandate of the improvement Trusts namely town improvement. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the intention and purpose behind the omission of section 10(20A) w.e.f. 04.04.2003 which earlier has expressly

M/S PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.567/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

property comprised in Village Mangoti, Tehsil Kasauli Distt Solan HP, measuring about 18 Bighas on the main road, which was on rent with the assessee "Lessee" i.e Pinegrove International Charitable Trust (Regd) since 1991. These rented buildings were situated on the main Kasauli Road, PO Dharampur-173209, in Distt. Solan HP, in which the trust was running a fully residential

M/S INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, (EXEMPTIONS), C-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 644 & 645/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528 /Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Infrastructure Development Acit, बनाम Fund Circle-2 (Exemptions), Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A. K. Jindal, Ca, Smt. Ratan Kaur & Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Smt. C. Chandrakanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020

Housing Project in the State of Haryana , and which contribution was for the purpose of carrying out development of capital expenditure on infrastructure projects such as National/State Highways etc. The assessee fund had been granted registration u/s 12AA by the Commissioner of Income Tax,( CIT), Panchkula vide order dated 31.08.2010. 3. During assessment proceedings for A.Ys

M/S INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, (EXEMPTIONS), C-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 644 & 645/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528 /Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Infrastructure Development Acit, बनाम Fund Circle-2 (Exemptions), Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A. K. Jindal, Ca, Smt. Ratan Kaur & Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Smt. C. Chandrakanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020

Housing Project in the State of Haryana , and which contribution was for the purpose of carrying out development of capital expenditure on infrastructure projects such as National/State Highways etc. The assessee fund had been granted registration u/s 12AA by the Commissioner of Income Tax,( CIT), Panchkula vide order dated 31.08.2010. 3. During assessment proceedings for A.Ys

M/S INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 644 & 645/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528 /Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Infrastructure Development Acit, बनाम Fund Circle-2 (Exemptions), Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A. K. Jindal, Ca, Smt. Ratan Kaur & Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Smt. C. Chandrakanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020

Housing Project in the State of Haryana , and which contribution was for the purpose of carrying out development of capital expenditure on infrastructure projects such as National/State Highways etc. The assessee fund had been granted registration u/s 12AA by the Commissioner of Income Tax,( CIT), Panchkula vide order dated 31.08.2010. 3. During assessment proceedings for A.Ys

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

charitable trusts. According to the assessee, the members were being provided salary/honorarium for the services they perform for the society which includes expenditures they incur for the purpose of the society such as travel for attending meetings with CBSE Board, DPS society, etc. This interpretation is misplaced and cannot be accepted. What was allowed as per the Memorandum was reimbursement