NARESH KUMAR KAMBOJ,ZIRAKPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566 of 2015 dated 17.03.2017. AO on the other hand held that facts of the above case are different than the present case and disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B

SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566 of 2015 dated 17.03.2017. AO on the other hand held that facts of the above case are different than the present case and disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B

DAYAL SINGH,VILL FATEHPUR PO BUREWALA vs. ITO WARD-1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566 of 2015 dated 17.03.2017. AO on the other hand held that facts of the above case are different than the present case and disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B

SATINDER PAUL THROUGH L/H NEELAM SAINI,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance on the case of Hindustan Photo Film Workers Vs. The Government of India WP No.18566 of 2015 dated 17.03.2017. AO on the other hand held that facts of the above case are different than the present case and disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B

SHRI GURU NANAK NAM LEWA SEWAK JATHA,,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

10B alongwith return of income by the due date as per Section 139 (1) of the Act and since assessee has failed to do so within the prescribed due date, the amount of Rs. 26,64,530/- claimed by way of exemption under section 11 was disallowed

MOONAK WELFARE SOCIETY,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SUNAM

In the result, we direct the AO to allow the exemption u/s 11 to the assessee society

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). 3.1 It Was Submitted During The Appellate Proceedings That The Cpc, Bangalore While Processing The Return Of Income Has Disallowed The Exemption On The Ground That Tax Audit Report In Form 10B Should Have Been Filed One Month Prior To The Filing

disallowing its claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act. 4. Against the said findings and directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that though CPC, Bangalore has initially denied the exemption under section 11 on account of fact that Form 10B

THE HABROL COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,LAGRU vs. ITO DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Habrol Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Dharamshala Agricultural Service Society Limited, Vill. Lagru Khundian Distt.Kangra Hp 176031 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadat1205A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hering ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

disallowing deduction under chapter VI -A in respect of section 80P of the Income Tax Act 1961, as assessee is providing banking /credit facilities to its members and covered u/s sec 80P (2)(a)(1) without considering the facts of the case which is highly arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted & uncalled for. 3) That the assessee has filed rectification but same

CEE ENN ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED BAREWAL SUKHMANI ENCLAVE LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) LUDHIANA RISHI NAGAR LUDHIANA, INCOME TAX OFFICER LUDHIANA RISHI NAGAR LUDHINA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowances, and hence, the CPC exceeded its jurisdiction. It was also asserted that the Ld. CIT(A) mechanically upheld the AO’s order without appreciating these factual and legal submissions, and therefore, both orders deserve to be quashed. It was submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble 4 Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. and Dilip Kumar

HARISH KUMAR,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(5) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.42/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Harish Kumar The Ito, 2439 Sector 50C, Ward 5(5) Chndigarh.160047 Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpk1006A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physicalhearing ) िनधा""रतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Jain, C.A. राज"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl.Cit.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2025 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20-12-2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi[Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal :-

10B) of the Act in its ITR. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 25,17,000/- out of total emoluments of Rs. 30,17,000/- and added back to the income of the Assessee as the scheme was on voluntary basis not compulsory as per 2nd proviso of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

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

disallowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r/w section 43B and of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee in its submission stated that regarding GPF of Rs. 253,02,49,471/- which is the net accumulated amount during the year, the erstwhile PSEB was treating the amount of PF under regulation 41(a) & (b) of the Provident

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

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

disallowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r/w section 43B and of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee in its submission stated that regarding GPF of Rs. 253,02,49,471/- which is the net accumulated amount during the year, the erstwhile PSEB was treating the amount of PF under regulation 41(a) & (b) of the Provident

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”.

10B during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, according to the provisions of section 12A(1) (b) of the Income –tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 11 are not applicable in the case of the assessee . Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 and 12 are hereby rejected. Without prejudice to the above, against the gross

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”.

10B during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, according to the provisions of section 12A(1) (b) of the Income –tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 11 are not applicable in the case of the assessee . Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 and 12 are hereby rejected. Without prejudice to the above, against the gross

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S OM PRAKASH BANSAL CHARITABLE TRUST, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

10B (page no. 50 & 51 of the paperbook) dated 29.09.2015 and as per the same, deposited the above said amount in a Scheduled Bank, thereby complying to the provisions of the section 11(2) of the Act. If the Assessing Officer wanted further specifics of the amount set apart, she could have asked for the same during the assessment proceedings

D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S OM PRAKASH BANSAL CHARITABLE TRUST, JAMMU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

10B (page no. 50 & 51 of the paperbook) dated 29.09.2015 and as per the same, deposited the above said amount in a Scheduled Bank, thereby complying to the provisions of the section 11(2) of the Act. If the Assessing Officer wanted further specifics of the amount set apart, she could have asked for the same during the assessment proceedings

HIMALAYAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,KULLU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE/DCIT CPC,BENGLURU, MANDI

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

10B with return of income and Form No. 10 was furnished later on, however the benefit under section 11(2) of the Act on the accumulated profit was not provided to the assessee. It was stated that no notice of deficiency if any, was issued to the assessee and that all the details were furnished by the assessee

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

10B under section 12A(b) of the Act and if it is violated, the trust could not be said to be genuinely carrying out its activities. Thus, the requirement of recording of all receipts/expenses in the books is of paramount importance to meet the condition of application of income u/s 11 (1)(a) and in absence of all receipts/expenses being

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

10B under section 12A(b) of the Act and if it is violated, the trust could not be said to be genuinely carrying out its activities. Thus, the requirement of recording of all receipts/expenses in the books is of paramount importance to meet the condition of application of income u/s 11 (1)(a) and in absence of all receipts/expenses being