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

charitable purpose and registered under the Society Registration Act (XXI of 1860) vide Registration No. 2650 of 2009-10 on 28.10.2009. The assessee society / Trust is Registered under section 12AA of the Act vide order dt. 22/02/2011 of Ld. CIT-II, Chandigarh w.e.f A.Y. 2011-12 and also registered under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act vide order

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

1)(c) read with Section 13(3) by making ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 6 payments of honorarium to the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, General Secretary, Finance Secretary of the assessee 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

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

1)(c) read with Section 13(3) by making ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 6 payments of honorarium to the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, General Secretary, Finance Secretary of the assessee 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

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

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

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

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

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

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

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

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, 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

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, cannot be discarded simply by observing that assessees have retracted same

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S OM PRAKASH BANSAL CHARITABLE TRUST, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Charitable Trust vs. Union of India and Others reported in 230 CTR 477 (Punj & Haryana) wherein it has been clearly held that merely because there is some surplus with the assessee it should not be the ground for denying the exemption. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been followed by the Delhi High Court

D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S OM PRAKASH BANSAL CHARITABLE TRUST, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Charitable Trust vs. Union of India and Others reported in 230 CTR 477 (Punj & Haryana) wherein it has been clearly held that merely because there is some surplus with the assessee it should not be the ground for denying the exemption. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been followed by the Delhi High Court