SRI GURU HAR RAI JI RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST ,CHANDIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

vi) on the date of Amendment brought to section 80G of the Act by Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 have to re-apply for fresh registration under Clause (i) to the First Proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act and those institutions have to be granted provisional registration for five years

FI FOUNDATION,KALKA vs. JAISHREE SHARMA, CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

vi) on the date of Amendment brought to section 80G of the Act by Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 have to re-apply for fresh registration under Clause (i) to the First Proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act and those institutions have to be granted provisional registration for five years

GAYTRI PARIVAR TRUST BHORANJ ,HAMIRPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 80G(5)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been declined against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the Worthy CIT(Exemptions) has grossly erred in not granting the approval u/ 80G (5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act 1961 vide order, dated

SOCIETY FOR TECHOLOGY BUSINESS INCUBATOR,MOHALI vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. We find that assessee Trust is already registered and only error committed by the assessee is the filing of the application under a wrong Section. Otherwise, it fulfills all the ingredients for grant of approval. Though under sub-clause (i) of the first proviso, the time limit was A.Y.2024-25 7 provided

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY DISTT BRANCH SAS NAGAR ,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Notice/Order No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2023-2024/1062081242(1) Dt. 06/03/2024 Which Was Passed By Cit (E), Chandigarh In Response To Assessee’S Application No. Cit Exemptions Chandigarh/2023-24/12Aa/11109 For Final Approval Of The Trust Under Section 80G (5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dt. 23/09/2023; Which Application Was Filed In Form No. 10Ab Under Rule 11Aa Of The Income Tax Rules 1962. The Said Application Was Rejected As Non Maintainable Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore The Present Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against

80G, Sub Section (5), first proviso which stipulates approval of a Charitable Trust or Institution is partly reproduced below: Provided that the institution or fund referred to in clause (VI

SIDH SHRI BABA BALAK NATH JI TRUST ,JAWALAMUKHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R. L. Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 299/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sidh Shri Baba Balak Nath Ji Commissioner Of Income Tax , बनाम Trust, Teh. Jawalamukhi, Exemption , Chandigarh Kangra, H. P. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aawts 8003R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application of the appellant trust for granting approval u/s 80G of the Act on flimsy grounds even when the objects and activities of the appellant were charitable

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

charitable purpose and registered under the Society Registration Act (XXI of 1860) vide Registration No. 2650 of 2009-10 on 28.10.2009. The assessee society / Trust is Registered under section 12AA of the Act vide order dt. 22/02/2011 of Ld. CIT-II, Chandigarh w.e.f A.Y. 2011-12 and also registered under section 80G(5)(vi

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

charitable purpose and registered under the Society Registration Act (XXI of 1860) vide Registration No. 2650 of 2009-10 on 28.10.2009. The assessee society / Trust is Registered under section 12AA of the Act vide order dt. 22/02/2011 of Ld. CIT-II, Chandigarh w.e.f A.Y. 2011-12 and also registered under section 80G(5)(vi

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

charitable purpose and registered under the Society Registration Act (XXI of 1860) vide Registration No. 2650 of 2009-10 on 28.10.2009. The assessee society / Trust is Registered under section 12AA of the Act vide order dt. 22/02/2011 of Ld. CIT-II, Chandigarh w.e.f A.Y. 2011-12 and also registered under section 80G(5)(vi

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

charitable object, his powers under section 12AA end. The case laws relied by the Ld. AR are applicable in the present case. The case laws relied by the Ld. DR are not applicable as the factual malrix in those cases are totally different. Thus, the order passed u/s 12AA and u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income

AMAR NATH BHAGWANTI CHARITABLE TRUST,PATIALA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Charitable बनाम The CIT(E), Trust, Chandigarh 146 S, Punjabi Bagh, Patiala, Punjab- 147001 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABTA7006K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vibhor Garg, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 31/07/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/08/2024

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)

charitable object, his powers under section 12AA end. The case laws relied by the Ld. AR are applicable in the present case. The case laws relied by the Ld. DR are not applicable as the factual matrix in those cases are totally different. Thus, the order passed u/s 12AA and u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHRI AUROBINDO SOCIO ECONOMIC & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LUDHINA

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

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

80G of the Act on account of these donations does not take away the character of the donations made by the donors as corpus donations. Merely because it is the employees of the donor companies who made donations doe not establish that it was a mode of taking back the salaries paid to them by the sister concerns. These appear

SIR AUROBINDO SOCIO ECONOMIC & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

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

80G of the Act on account of these donations does not take away the character of the donations made by the donors as corpus donations. Merely because it is the employees of the donor companies who made donations doe not establish that it was a mode of taking back the salaries paid to them by the sister concerns. These appear

M/S OM SAT SANATAN GEETA BHAWAN TRUST,BARNALA vs. CIT (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act). 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee moved an application in Form 10G on 19/08/1918 for grant of approval U/s 80G of the Act. The assessee Trust was created on 19/10/1964 and is registered U/s 12AA of the Act since 01/03/1976

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

vi s the salary being drawn by them from the Society and the services being rendered to the Society and no defect/ shortcoming could be pointed out by the AO even during the survey and in the assessment in previous/subsequent years. The A.O. has failed to apply his/her mind that on the one hand he himself is alleging that

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

vi s the salary being drawn by them from the Society and the services being rendered to the Society and no defect/ shortcoming could be pointed out by the AO even during the survey and in the assessment in previous/subsequent years. The A.O. has failed to apply his/her mind that on the one hand he himself is alleging that

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

vi s the salary being drawn by them from the Society and the services being rendered to the Society and no defect/ shortcoming could be pointed out by the AO even during the survey and in the assessment in previous/subsequent years. The A.O. has failed to apply his/her mind that on the one hand he himself is alleging that