KDDL ETHOS FOUNDATION,CHANDIGARH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 209/Chd/2021 (U/S 12Aa) Kddl Ethos Foundation, The Commissioner Of Income बनाम Sco 88-89, Tax (Exemptions), Sector 8-C, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aactk7915Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

trust become not charitable with this act. The fact that the CSR expenditure are not allowable expenditure under section 37

M/S PSTCL CSR TRUST,PATIALA vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

trust become not charitable with this act. The fact that the CSR expenditure are not allowable expenditure under section 37

JT. CIT (OSD), (E), C-2, CHANDIGARH vs. CH. LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 717/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

37,838/- made by the Assessing Officer. However, the aforesaid total addition made by the Assessing Officer, out of the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,21,33,538/- has been separately contested vide ground No.2 and the remaining addition of Rs. 5,89,04,300/- has been separately contested vide ground No.3

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

charitable objective, hence not entitled for benefit of Section 11 of the Act. 7. The appeal to the CIT (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee on this part. 8. Before us, it was submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee that since inception, these activities have never been doubted. There is no change in the activity

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

charitable objective, hence not entitled for benefit of Section 11 of the Act. 7. The appeal to the CIT (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee on this part. 8. Before us, it was submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee that since inception, these activities have never been doubted. There is no change in the activity

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Charitable or\nreligious trust - Denial of exemption (Sub-section (l)(c)) - Assessment year 2011-\nAssessee-society claimed exemption under section 11 - Assessing Officer\nconcluded that quantum jump in payment of salary to its executive director in\n assessment year under, appeal being unreasonable was in violation of section\n13(1)(c) and, therefore, he denied exemption under section 11 However

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

trusts. The\nLearned AO, while completing the assessment for Assessment Year 2015-\n16, duly examined the appellant's claim under Sections 11 and 12 after\ncalling for detailed information regarding accumulation, utilization and the\nfiling of Form No. 10. Identical forms and wording had been consistently\naccepted in earlier scrutiny assessments, including Assessment Years 2012-\n13 and 2013-14, after

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

trusts. The\nLearned AO, while completing the assessment for Assessment Year 2015-\n16, duly examined the appellant's claim under Sections 11 and 12 after\ncalling for detailed information regarding accumulation, utilization and the\nfiling of Form No. 10. Identical forms and wording had been consistently\naccepted in earlier scrutiny assessments, including Assessment Years 2012-\n13 and 2013-14, after

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

trusts. The\nLearned AO, while completing the assessment for Assessment Year 2015-\n16, duly examined the appellant's claim under Sections 11 and 12 after\ncalling for detailed information regarding accumulation, utilization and the\n\nfiling of Form No. 10. Identical forms and wording had been consistently\naccepted in earlier scrutiny assessments, including Assessment Years

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

trusts. The\nLearned AO, while completing the assessment for Assessment Year 2015-\n16, duly examined the appellant's claim under Sections 11 and 12 after\ncalling for detailed information regarding accumulation, utilization and the\n36\n\nfiling of Form No. 10. Identical forms and wording had been consistently\naccepted in earlier scrutiny assessments, including Assessment Years

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

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

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

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

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

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