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

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

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

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

M/S INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, (EXEMPTIONS), C-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 644 & 645/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528 /Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Infrastructure Development Acit, बनाम Fund Circle-2 (Exemptions), Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A. K. Jindal, Ca, Smt. Ratan Kaur & Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Smt. C. Chandrakanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020

245,31,77,050/- which is highly unjustified and uncalled for. B) That the appellant disputes the quantum of addition made. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify and ground of appeal on or before the disposal of the appeal.” The assessee has further raised additional ground in A.Y 2013-14 as under:- “1. That

M/S INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 644 & 645/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528 /Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Infrastructure Development Acit, बनाम Fund Circle-2 (Exemptions), Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A. K. Jindal, Ca, Smt. Ratan Kaur & Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Smt. C. Chandrakanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020

245,31,77,050/- which is highly unjustified and uncalled for. B) That the appellant disputes the quantum of addition made. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify and ground of appeal on or before the disposal of the appeal.” The assessee has further raised additional ground in A.Y 2013-14 as under:- “1. That

M/S INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, (EXEMPTIONS), C-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 644 & 645/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2014-15 Infrastructure Development Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax बनाम Fund (Exemptions) Circle-2, Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 528 /Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Infrastructure Development Acit, बनाम Fund Circle-2 (Exemptions), Sco-71-17 Sector-17C Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri A. K. Jindal, Ca, Smt. Ratan Kaur & Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Chandrajeet Singh, Cit(Dr) Smt. C. Chandrakanta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020

245,31,77,050/- which is highly unjustified and uncalled for. B) That the appellant disputes the quantum of addition made. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify and ground of appeal on or before the disposal of the appeal.” The assessee has further raised additional ground in A.Y 2013-14 as under:- “1. That

BABA HIRA SINGH BHATTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,LEHRAGAGA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Charitable Trust”, 2012 (12) TMI 818 )copy at ACL PB-II, pages 57-59) and the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of “the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sunbeam English School”, 2013 (7) TMI 812 (copy at ACL PB-II, pages 60-64). 10. The Department, on the other hand