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 object of the\nassessee?\nvii)\nWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.\nCIT(A) has erred in holding the order of the Assessing Officer not right\nbecause the assessee had been running for the past many years and\nvarious assessments u/s 143(3) had been made for the earlier years and\nnosuch adverse

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

trust or corpus funds.\n4. 9. Accordingly, the cess collections of the appellant-Board are basically\nlinked to its statutory obligation and welfare objects, and therefore, must\nbe regarded as corpus funds exempt from tax, and not as taxable income.\nReliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

trust or corpus funds.\n4. 9. Accordingly, the cess collections of the appellant-Board are basically\nlinked to its statutory obligation and welfare objects, and therefore, must\nbe regarded as corpus funds exempt from tax, and not as taxable income.\nReliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

trust or corpus funds.\n\n4. 9. Accordingly, the cess collections of the appellant-Board are basically\nlinked to its statutory obligation and welfare objects, and therefore, must\nbe regarded as corpus funds exempt from tax, and not as taxable income.\nReliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

trust or corpus funds.\n\n4. 9. Accordingly, the cess collections of the appellant-Board are basically\nlinked to its statutory obligation and welfare objects, and therefore, must\nbe regarded as corpus funds exempt from tax, and not as taxable income.\nReliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

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

92,96,818/-, making\nthe following key additions:\nΟ\nSurplus taxed as AOP (Denial of Exemption): Rs.10,20,01,948/-\nDisallowance of Interest (on advances to specified persons): Rs.\n10,61,466/-\nΟ\nDisallowance of Salary to Specified Persons: Rs.21,02,000/- (Deletion\nupheld by CIT(A))\nΟ\nRestriction of Depreciation (due to lack of proofs for additions

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

Charitable Organisation, where the amount so paid is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services. Person defined above includes; (i) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution, (ii) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution during

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

Charitable Organisation, where the amount so paid is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services. Person defined above includes; (i) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution, (ii) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution during

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

Charitable Organisation, where the amount so paid is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services. Person defined above includes; (i) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution, (ii) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution during

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

Charitable Organisation, where the amount so paid is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services. Person defined above includes; (i) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution, (ii) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution during

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

Charitable Organisation, where the amount so paid is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services. Person defined above includes; (i) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution, (ii) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution during

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

Charitable Organisation, where the amount so paid is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services. Person defined above includes; (i) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution, (ii) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution during

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

Charitable Organisation, where the amount so paid is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services. Person defined above includes; (i) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution, (ii) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution during

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

Charitable Organisation, where the amount so paid is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services. Person defined above includes; (i) the author of the trust or the founder of the institution, (ii) any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, [that is to say, any person whose total contribution during

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)

Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act and was not doing charitable activities; that so, the status of ITA 1348 & 1375/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 4 charitable activities was being denied to the assessee and the income of the assessee was being assessed as an AOP. The AO made addition of surplus of Rs.2,92,18,989/-. 6. By virtue

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)

Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act and was not doing charitable activities; that so, the status of ITA 1348 & 1375/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 4 charitable activities was being denied to the assessee and the income of the assessee was being assessed as an AOP. The AO made addition of surplus of Rs.2,92,18,989/-. 6. By virtue