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

Charitable Trust Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Centra), Lucknow [2018] 93 taxmann.com 483(All.) • Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions(I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 67 (Bom) 5.19 The Ld. Pr. CIT(Central),Gurugram was of the view that he shall exercise all the powers and perform all the functions as stipulated

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

142(1)\nwere issued and served upon the assessee.\n5.2 The 1d. AO has analyzed the activities of the assessee\nand found that assessee has extended the undue benefit to\ntwo individuals, who fellwithin the ambit of individuals'\ncontained in sub-section (3) to Section 13. Hence, payments\ngiven to these two individuals namely, Kalpana Thakur and\nShubhdeep have been

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

trust.” 3. A perusal of the record along with the above grounds of appeal would indicate that though Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal but its grievance revolve around solitary issue, whether the assessee is to be treated as a “charitable institution” and entitled for benefit under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment

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

142(1) of the Income Tax Act on 16.03.2016 and 01.02.2017 listing the cases for hearing on 18.05.2016 and 06.03.2017 for assessment year 2014-15 and ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 3 2015-16. The AO has made a detailed analysis and thereafter determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.5,23,74,106/- in assessment year

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

142(1) of the Income Tax Act on 16.03.2016 and 01.02.2017 listing the cases for hearing on 18.05.2016 and 06.03.2017 for assessment year 2014-15 and ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 3 2015-16. The AO has made a detailed analysis and thereafter determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.5,23,74,106/- in assessment year

HIMALAYAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,KULLU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE/DCIT CPC,BENGLURU, MANDI

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

Trust for charitable purposes and the same being duly deposited as per provisions of section 11(5) of the Act, the addition made is against the scope of section 11 and is un-sustainable under law. 3. That the orders of the lower authorities are not justified on facts and the same are bad in law. 4. That the assessee

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

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

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

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

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

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

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

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

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

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

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