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

unexplained funds as bogus corpus donation. (v) That once expenses are not recorded properly or are unverifiable or utilized for personal benefit of the trustees then the trust cannot be said to be carrying out its activities genuinely and solely for the purpose of its object. 6. That without prejudice, on facts and in law the PCIT-Gurgaon has erred

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

unexplained funds as bogus corpus donation. (v) That once expenses are not recorded properly or are unverifiable or utilized for personal benefit of the trustees then the trust cannot be said to be carrying out its activities genuinely and solely for the purpose of its object. 6. That without prejudice, on facts and in law the PCIT-Gurgaon has erred

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

unexplained funds as bogus corpus donation. (v) That once expenses are not recorded properly or are unverifiable or utilized for personal benefit of the trustees then the trust cannot be said to be carrying out its activities genuinely and solely for the purpose of its object. 6. That without prejudice, on facts and in law the PCIT-Gurgaon has erred

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 reported at [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras) as under: "Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General (Retraction of statement) - Assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 - Whether statement recorded under section 132(4) and later, confirmed in statement recorded under section 131, cannot be discarded simply by observing that assessees have retracted same

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

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

Investment), Gurugram, the DDIT (Investigation), Hissar afforded too many opportunities to Shri Pardeep Kumar to appear or file any written reply as regard to purchase made with the parties, but he has neither appeared nor filed any written reply. A letter was sent to him by Registered Post on his residential address i.e., ……..2875, Gandhi Memorial Vidhalya, Abohar by specifically

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

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

Investment), Gurugram, the DDIT (Investigation), Hissar afforded too many opportunities to Shri Pardeep Kumar to appear or file any written reply as regard to purchase made with the parties, but he has neither appeared nor filed any written reply. A letter was sent to him by Registered Post on his residential address i.e., ……..2875, Gandhi Memorial Vidhalya, Abohar by specifically

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

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

Investment), Gurugram, the DDIT (Investigation), Hissar afforded too many opportunities to Shri Pardeep Kumar to appear or file any written reply as regard to purchase made with the parties, but he has neither appeared nor filed any written reply. A letter was sent to him by Registered Post on his residential address i.e., ……..2875, Gandhi Memorial Vidhalya, Abohar by specifically

SH. DEVINDER KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-VII(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore,

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Devinder Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 14, Surya Vihar, Ward-Vii (1), Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. New Address: C/O M/S Shree Aum Hospital Aashiana Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu. (Jammu & Kashmir). Pan: Aenpk0344L (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable trusts and therefore no interest was charged. Further opportunities were also given to the assessee wherein he contended that the loans raised were for business purpose only. The Assessing Officer after considering the reply filed by the assessee, held that the assessee had failed to establish the commercial expediency for making the said loans and also that the loans