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)

Trust, 216 ITR 697 (SC) in which it was held that Section 11(1) of the Act is not in any manner restricted by Section 11(2) of the Act. The accumulated income which is exempt under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act is not required to be invested in ‘government securities’. It was found that Section 11(2

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)

Trust, 216 ITR 697 (SC) in which it was held that Section 11(1) of the Act is not in any manner restricted by Section 11(2) of the Act. The accumulated income which is exempt under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act is not required to be invested in ‘government securities’. It was found that Section 11(2

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)

Trust, 216 ITR 697 (SC) in which it was held that Section 11(1) of the Act is not in any manner restricted by Section 11(2) of the Act. The accumulated income which is exempt under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act is not required to be invested in ‘government securities’. It was found that Section 11(2

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)

Trust, 216 ITR 697 (SC) in which it was held that Section 11(1) of the Act is not in any manner restricted by Section 11(2) of the Act. The accumulated income which is exempt under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act is not required to be invested in ‘government securities’. It was found that Section 11(2

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

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

143(2) and 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

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

143(2) and 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

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

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

143(2) and 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

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

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

143(2) and 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

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

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

143(2) and 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

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

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

143(2) and 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

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

143(2) and 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

143(2) and 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

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

143(2) and 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

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

section 13(1)(c) shall not be applicable when both IndoGlobal Education Foundation and Chaman Educational & Charitable Trust areclosely held trusts with common members, hence, the real persons derivingbenefit from the transfer of funds/donations are specified persons u/s 13(3). v. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erredin law in holding that

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

charitable activities. The assessee had stated\nthat in respect of the benefit of accumulation availed under\nsection 11(2) in the earlier years, the accumulated surplus of the\nAY 2016-17 was to be utilized by the assessee board till the end\nof the AY 2021-22 as per provisions of section 11(2) of the\nIncome

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

charitable activities. The assessee had stated\nthat in respect of the benefit of accumulation availed under\nsection 11(2) in the earlier years, the accumulated surplus of the\nAY 2016-17 was to be utilized by the assessee board till the end\nof the AY 2021-22 as per provisions of section 11(2) of the\nIncome

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

charitable activities. The assessee had stated\nthat in respect of the benefit of accumulation availed under\nsection 11(2) in the earlier years, the accumulated surplus of the\nAY 2016-17 was to be utilized by the assessee board till the end\nof the AY 2021-22 as per provisions of section 11(2) of the\nIncome

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

charitable activities. The assessee had stated\nthat in respect of the benefit of accumulation availed under\nsection 11(2) in the earlier years, the accumulated surplus of the\nAY 2016-17 was to be utilized by the assessee board till the end\nof the AY 2021-22 as per provisions of section 11(2) of the\nIncome