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

NIRMALA RANI L/H OF SH. AZAD SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -1, , PANCHKULA

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

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

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IC, for assessment year 2013-14. 8.3 Finding that the facts for the year under consideration on this issue are exactly in pari materia with those having a reason for assessment year 2013-14, the ld. CIT(A) followed the aforesaid Tribunal order dated 04.10.2017, passed in ITA 501/CHD/2017, in the assessee's own case

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

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

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

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

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

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

10B on 31/12/2022 as against the due date of filing of the return on 31/10/2022. The return of income so filed was processed by CPC, Bangalore and in the intimation issued under section 143(1) dated 03/03/2023, total income was determined at Rs. 10,77,300/- by disallowing

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.

disallowing the benefit under section 11(2) of the Act to the assessee. He requested to restore the issue back to the file of the A.O. to allow the claim after verification. The reliance was placed on the following case laws : • M/s Infrastructure Development Fund Vs. The DCIT, Exemptions in ITA No. 220/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2016-17 vide order

THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, C-1, CHANDIGARH

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

section 12AA(1)(b)(i) of the Act vide order dt. 11/09/2009 of CIT-III, Ludhiana. The assessee filed its return of income on 01/09/2016 declaring NIL income. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. noticed that in the computation of income as well as in Form No. 10 submitted

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

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

FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: This Hon'Ble

section 292B. 3.1 That the intimation u/s 143(1 )(a) dated 13.06.2023,disallowing exemption, merely on the ground of not filing Audit Report in Form ITA 608/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2022-23 5 10B

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

disallowance\non account of assessee's activity which amounted a business as per proviso to s.\n2(15) and thus, assessee was not entitled for exemption u/s 11(4A)—AO also\ndisallowed assessee's claim on account of depreciation—No relief was granted\nby CIT(A)-Held, it was not Revenue's case that transport facility was also\nprovided

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