M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

9 Saraogi Vs CIT”, 67 ITR 84 (S.C) and “Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT”, 88 ITR 323 (S.C). 9.2 It was held that evidently, the assessment order was erroneous and so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue to the extent of verification of purchases and examination of the applicability of Section 40A(3) against

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

9 (P&H) 1.2.2 The Hon'ble Karanataka HC in CIT vs. CMR Jnanadhara Trust [2015] 92 CCH 396 (Kar), 1.2.3 The Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Dr.D.Y. Patil Pratisthan vs. DCIT[2013] 154 TTJ 320 (Pune ITAT. 1.2.4 The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case

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

9 (P&H) 1.2.2 The Hon'ble Karanataka HC in CIT vs. CMR Jnanadhara Trust [2015] 92 CCH 396 (Kar), 1.2.3 The Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Dr.D.Y. Patil Pratisthan vs. DCIT[2013] 154 TTJ 320 (Pune ITAT. 1.2.4 The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case

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

9 (P&H) 1.2.2 The Hon'ble Karanataka HC in CIT vs. CMR Jnanadhara Trust [2015] 92 CCH 396 (Kar), 1.2.3 The Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Dr.D.Y. Patil Pratisthan vs. DCIT[2013] 154 TTJ 320 (Pune ITAT. 1.2.4 The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case

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

9 (P&H) 1.2.2 The Hon'ble Karanataka HC in CIT vs. CMR Jnanadhara Trust [2015] 92 CCH 396 (Kar), 1.2.3 The Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Dr.D.Y. Patil Pratisthan vs. DCIT[2013] 154 TTJ 320 (Pune ITAT. 1.2.4 The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case

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

9 (P&H) 1.2.2 The Hon'ble Karanataka HC in CIT vs. CMR Jnanadhara Trust [2015] 92 CCH 396 (Kar), 1.2.3 The Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Dr.D.Y. Patil Pratisthan vs. DCIT[2013] 154 TTJ 320 (Pune ITAT. 1.2.4 The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case

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

9 (P&H) 1.2.2 The Hon'ble Karanataka HC in CIT vs. CMR Jnanadhara Trust [2015] 92 CCH 396 (Kar), 1.2.3 The Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Dr.D.Y. Patil Pratisthan vs. DCIT[2013] 154 TTJ 320 (Pune ITAT. 1.2.4 The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case

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

9 (P&H) 1.2.2 The Hon'ble Karanataka HC in CIT vs. CMR Jnanadhara Trust [2015] 92 CCH 396 (Kar), 1.2.3 The Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Dr.D.Y. Patil Pratisthan vs. DCIT[2013] 154 TTJ 320 (Pune ITAT. 1.2.4 The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case

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

9 (P&H) 1.2.2 The Hon'ble Karanataka HC in CIT vs. CMR Jnanadhara Trust [2015] 92 CCH 396 (Kar), 1.2.3 The Pune Bench of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Dr.D.Y. Patil Pratisthan vs. DCIT[2013] 154 TTJ 320 (Pune ITAT. 1.2.4 The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,EXEMPTION,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

charitable trusts. According to the assessee, the members were being provided salary/honorarium for the services they perform for the society which includes expenditures they incur for the purpose of the society such as travel for attending meetings with CBSE Board, DPS society, etc. This interpretation is misplaced and cannot be accepted. What was allowed as per the Memorandum was reimbursement

ASSISSTANT COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

charitable trusts. According to the assessee, the members were being provided salary/honorarium for the services they perform for the society which includes expenditures they incur for the purpose of the society such as travel for attending meetings with CBSE Board, DPS society, etc. This interpretation is misplaced and cannot be accepted. What was allowed as per the Memorandum was reimbursement

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

charitable trusts. According to the assessee, the members were being provided salary/honorarium for the services they perform for the society which includes expenditures they incur for the purpose of the society such as travel for attending meetings with CBSE Board, DPS society, etc. This interpretation is misplaced and cannot be accepted. What was allowed as per the Memorandum was reimbursement

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. HERITAGE EDUCATION SOCIETY , C/O DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

charitable trusts. According to the assessee, the members were being provided salary/honorarium for the services they perform for the society which includes expenditures they incur for the purpose of the society such as travel for attending meetings with CBSE Board, DPS society, etc. This interpretation is misplaced and cannot be accepted. What was allowed as per the Memorandum was reimbursement