M/S ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 821/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1 Charitable Trust, बनाम (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L

Charitable Trust, Mohali 2 assessing officer applying the provisions of Section 115BBC and Section 68 which is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified

ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REGD, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

Charitable Institution by way of Finance Act, 2021 and assessee has been granted registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) on 18.07.2023. The controversy started from the assessment of assessment year 2013-14 to 2015-16. The AO during the assessment proceedings of these assessment years noticed that there was an imprest deposit against the name of Shri Anshu Kataria, Chairman

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

charitable purpose as defined in Section 2(15) of the\nIncome Tax Act.The assessee society is affiliated with Central Board of Secondary\nEducation (CBSE), Punjab Technical University (PTU), All India Council of Technical\nEducation (AICTE), Council of Architecture. All of these are Governmental Bodies\npromoting and imparting education, and assessee society is affiliated and\nassociated with them. All these facts

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

Charitable or religious Trust etc. 17B. The report of the audit of the accounts of Trust or institution which is required to be furnished under clause (b) of Section 12A shall be in Form No. 10B. The assessee has furnished in the Income-tax Return in the ITR-7 on 15-10-2010. The assessee has not enclosed the audit

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

Charitable or religious Trust etc. 17B. The report of the audit of the accounts of Trust or institution which is required to be furnished under clause (b) of Section 12A shall be in Form No. 10B. The assessee has furnished in the Income-tax Return in the ITR-7 on 15-10-2010. The assessee has not enclosed the audit

M/S SURYA WORLD EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTE,RAJPURA vs. DCIT , CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

charitable or religious trust are chargeable to tax at the rate of 30%. Even if such donations are styled as “corpus donations”, the assessee must still establish the identity of donors unless falling within the exceptions prescribed. We may reproduce the relevant section 115BBC , which is as under:- Section 115BBC – Anonymous donations received by certain entities (1) Where

M/S SURYA WORLD EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTE,RAJPURA vs. DCIT , CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non- prosecution and on merits

Bench: Us. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & To Avoid Repetition, We Are Taking Ita No. 879/Del/2018 As The Lead Appeal & Reproducing The Facts, Grounds Raised & The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)Karnal, For Completeness. 2. The Case Was Listed For Hearing On 29/5/2025 , When The Matter Was Called, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. It Is Noted From The Record That Earlier Mr. Tej Mohan, Advocate, Was Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, No Adjournment Request Or Explanation For Non-Appearance Has Been Filed. The Conduct Of The Assessee Indicates A Lack Of Interest In Prosecuting The Appeal. However, Considering Non- Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee On Many Earlier Occasions & The Nature Of The Issues Involved, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits As Well.

charitable or religious trust are chargeable to tax at the rate of 30%. Even if such donations are styled as “corpus donations”, the assessee must still establish the identity of donors unless falling within the exceptions prescribed. We may reproduce the relevant section 115BBC , which is as under:- Section 115BBC – Anonymous donations received by certain entities (1) Where

M/S SURYA WORLD EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTE,RAJPURA vs. DCIT , CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed both for non-\nprosecution and on merits

Charitable Institute,\nNH-1, Village Bapror, Rajpura\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADAS4869H\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nबनाम\nThe Dy. CIT\nCentral Circle-1, Chandigarh\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nNone\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nSmt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29/05/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03/06/2025\nआदेश

SH. LACHHMAN DASS BANSAL,BARNALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Charitable Trust vs. CIT reported in [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) in which it has been held that retraction is required to be made as soon as possible and it should be supported by an affidavit that the contents as given in the statement was incorrect and it was obtained under force, coercion and lodging a complaint with higher officials

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

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

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

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

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

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

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

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

68 of the Act. This position stands settled vide inter-alia, the following decisions : i) ITA No. 325/2008 (Del) CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal "As there was no case for disallowance for corresponding purchases, no addition could be made under Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December

SH. PARSHOTAM LAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 to 69D of the Act, it must be appreciated that all of these are deeming provisions, wherein the burden of abuse of provisions is on the department. Incase such burden of proof is not discharged by the department, then such an addition cannot be made in this regard in case of the assessee. 3.&4. On 23 December