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

2) whether the trust is applying entire receipt/income solely for the charitable purposes of trust as required u/s 11,12 & 13 (‘Application Test’). The Ld. Pr. CIT further observed as under: 9.4 Further, in order to avail the exemption u/s 11 & 12, not only all the activities of the trust should be genuine but at the same time the income

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

2) whether the trust is applying entire receipt/income solely for the charitable purposes of trust as required u/s 11,12 & 13 (‘Application Test’). The Ld. Pr. CIT further observed as under: 9.4 Further, in order to avail the exemption u/s 11 & 12, not only all the activities of the trust should be genuine but at the same time the income

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

2) whether the trust is applying entire receipt/income solely for the charitable purposes of trust as required u/s 11,12 & 13 (‘Application Test’). The Ld. Pr. CIT further observed as under: 9.4 Further, in order to avail the exemption u/s 11 & 12, not only all the activities of the trust should be genuine but at the same time the income

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S INDO GLOBAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION, KHARAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, M/S Indo Global बनाम Circle-1(Exemptions), Education Foundation, Chandigarh Vill. Abhipur, Vs. Sub Tehsil Majra, Tehsil Kharar, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaati2838L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2,12,970 made to BMI - Held, yes e) CIT v. Shri Ram Memorial Foundation (2004) 269 ITR 35 (Del.) in 2004Tax Pub (DT) 1539 (Del-HC) Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or religious trust -Exemption of income from property held under - Assessment year 1977-78 - Assessee-charitable institution made donation of some amounts

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

trust-Assessing Officer taking a view that such payment breached section 13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According

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

trust-Assessing Officer taking a view that such payment breached section 13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According

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

trust-Assessing Officer taking a view that such payment breached section 13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According

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

trust-Assessing Officer taking a view that such payment breached section 13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According

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

trust-Assessing Officer taking a view that such payment breached section 13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According

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

trust-Assessing Officer taking a view that such payment breached section 13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According

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

trust-Assessing Officer taking a view that such payment breached section 13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According

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

trust-Assessing Officer taking a view that such payment breached section 13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court