CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

section 12AA(4) r.w.s 13(1) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Jagannath Gupta Family Trust [2019] 102 taxmann.com 34 (SC) • Ram Bhawan Dharamshala Vs. State of Rajasthan [2002] 124 Taxman 149 (Raj.) • Agappa Child Centre [1997] 226 ITR 211 (Ker) • DIT (Exem). Vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

section 12AA(4) r.w.s 13(1) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Jagannath Gupta Family Trust [2019] 102 taxmann.com 34 (SC) • Ram Bhawan Dharamshala Vs. State of Rajasthan [2002] 124 Taxman 149 (Raj.) • Agappa Child Centre [1997] 226 ITR 211 (Ker) • DIT (Exem). Vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust

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, (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

trust is high compared to other salaried employees. So reply in this regard is not accepted and payments to these persons are not reasonable and liable for disallowance u/s 13 (l)(c) r.w. 13(3) of I. T. Act, 1961 and taxed u/s 164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various 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

trust is high compared to other salaried employees. So reply in this regard is not accepted and payments to these persons are not reasonable and liable for disallowance u/s 13 (l)(c) r.w. 13(3) of I. T. Act, 1961 and taxed u/s 164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various 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

trust is high compared to other salaried employees. So reply in this regard is not accepted and payments to these persons are not reasonable and liable for disallowance u/s 13 (l)(c) r.w. 13(3) of I. T. Act, 1961 and taxed u/s 164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various 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

trust is high compared to other salaried employees. So reply in this regard is not accepted and payments to these persons are not reasonable and liable for disallowance u/s 13 (l)(c) r.w. 13(3) of I. T. Act, 1961 and taxed u/s 164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various 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

trust is high compared to other salaried employees. So reply in this regard is not accepted and payments to these persons are not reasonable and liable for disallowance u/s 13 (l)(c) r.w. 13(3) of I. T. Act, 1961 and taxed u/s 164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various 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

trust is high compared to other salaried employees. So reply in this regard is not accepted and payments to these persons are not reasonable and liable for disallowance u/s 13 (l)(c) r.w. 13(3) of I. T. Act, 1961 and taxed u/s 164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various 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

trust is high compared to other salaried employees. So reply in this regard is not accepted and payments to these persons are not reasonable and liable for disallowance u/s 13 (l)(c) r.w. 13(3) of I. T. Act, 1961 and taxed u/s 164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various 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

trust is high compared to other salaried employees. So reply in this regard is not accepted and payments to these persons are not reasonable and liable for disallowance u/s 13 (l)(c) r.w. 13(3) of I. T. Act, 1961 and taxed u/s 164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various case

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: 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

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

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

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

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