KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Trust. He has also observed that assessee has provided travelling facility to these persons and therefore, this is not part of its objectives. Similarly, he has pointed out one more circumstance vide which incurrence of expenditure on start of an Aviation Maintenance Engineering Course is not covered under ‘Charitable Activities’. On accumulative setting of these 2-3 circumstances, which

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Trust. He has also observed that assessee has provided travelling facility to these persons and therefore, this is not part of its objectives. Similarly, he has pointed out one more circumstance vide which incurrence of expenditure on start of an Aviation Maintenance Engineering Course is not covered under ‘Charitable Activities’. On accumulative setting of these 2-3 circumstances, which

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

131 of the Act and it was found that these payments were not genuine and reasonable and then it was asked that the payments made to specific persons under section13(3) of the Act towards salary were excessive and not reasonable and were in violation of provisions of section13(1)(c) of the Act. So, as to why those payments

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

131 of the Act and it was found that these payments were not genuine and reasonable and then it was asked that the payments made to specific persons under section13(3) of the Act towards salary were excessive and not reasonable and were in violation of provisions of section13(1)(c) of the Act. So, as to why those payments

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

131 of the Act and it was found that these payments were not genuine and reasonable and then it was asked that the payments made to specific persons under section13(3) of the Act towards salary were excessive and not reasonable and were in violation of provisions of section13(1)(c) of the Act. So, as to why those payments

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”.

charitable activities. (iii) Except claiming that the material reached the premises of the assessee, the assessee could not bring anything on record to substantiate the same. No stock register/gate register or name of the person delivering the material at the site has been disclosed. 3. The copies of the plans of school building as prepared by the architect filed

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”.

charitable activities. (iii) Except claiming that the material reached the premises of the assessee, the assessee could not bring anything on record to substantiate the same. No stock register/gate register or name of the person delivering the material at the site has been disclosed. 3. The copies of the plans of school building as prepared by the architect filed

SH. LACHHMAN DASS BANSAL,BARNALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) as under: "Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General (Retraction of statement) - Assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 - Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) has held as under: "Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) has held as under: "Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) has held as under: "Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) has held as under: "Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) has held as under: "Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) has held as under: "Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

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

Charitable Trust reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) has held as under: "Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131

THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

charitable purposes of the trust. The assessee cannot be allowed deduction on account of application of funds on capital expenditure which have been spent out of the accumulated funds u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the earlier years. In view of the above, the disallowance made by the assessee is upheld. This ground of appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

Trust, yet it was admitted fact that no search\noperation was conducted in premises of assessee - Besides, no panchnama was\ndrawn in pursuance of warrant of authorization in name of assessee in his\nindividual capacity - Whether, on facts, conditions precedent for initiating\nproceedings under section 153A against assessee in his individual status were\nnot complied with and, therefore, impugned proceedings