THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

Section 11 of the Act. The assessee thus having failed to follow the prescribed procedure, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,94,11,605/-. 4. The assessee, feeling aggrieved, challenged both these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’ for short). Apart from the issue of deposit in the bank being treated as application of income

DCIT vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

Section 11 of the Act. The assessee thus having failed to follow the prescribed procedure, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,94,11,605/-. 4. The assessee, feeling aggrieved, challenged both these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’ for short). Apart from the issue of deposit in the bank being treated as application of income

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

Section 11 of the Act. The assessee thus having failed to follow the prescribed procedure, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,94,11,605/-. 4. The assessee, feeling aggrieved, challenged both these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’ for short). Apart from the issue of deposit in the bank being treated as application of income

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that the assessee is hit by section 13(8) of the Income Tax Act. 2. That CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions made ITA No. 1382/Chd/2016- Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh 2 by the assessee and has wrongly given a finding that holding of the Devis

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

disallowed the benefit of Section 11 in toto. 9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record

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

disallowed the benefit of Section 11 in toto. 9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record

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 11(2) of the Act gives the benefit of claiming exemption of the entire income derived from the property held under the assessee trust/society even if the amount accumulated or set apart is more than 15% of the income. If the assessee is allowed benefit of application of income out of accumulated funds, it will amount to giving double

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

11 and section 12 in the assessment dated 27.09.2017 after\nconsidering the material placed on record. Where an assessing officer, after\nenquiry, takes a view which is tenable on the material, such a view cannot be re-\ncharacterised as “erroneous” merely because the Learned CIT prefers an alternate\nconclusion.\n3.1.6 In the present case, the Learned CIT, Exemptions has failed

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

11 and section 12 in the assessment dated 27.09.2017 after\nconsidering the material placed on record. Where an assessing officer, after\nenquiry, takes a view which is tenable on the material, such a view cannot be re-\ncharacterised as “erroneous” merely because the Learned CIT prefers an alternate\nconclusion.\n3.1.6 In the present case, the Learned CIT, Exemptions has failed

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

11 and section 12 in the assessment dated 27.09.2017 after\nconsidering the material placed on record. Where an assessing officer, after\nenquiry, takes a view which is tenable on the material, such a view cannot be re-\ncharacterised as “erroneous” merely because the Learned CIT prefers an alternate\nconclusion.\n\n3.1.6 In the present case, the Learned CIT, Exemptions

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

11 and section 12 in the assessment dated 27.09.2017 after\nconsidering the material placed on record. Where an assessing officer, after\nenquiry, takes a view which is tenable on the material, such a view cannot be re-\ncharacterised as \"erroneous\" merely because the Learned CIT prefers an alternate\nconclusion.\n\n3.1.6 In the present case, the Learned CIT, Exemptions

BABA HIRA SINGH BHATTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,LEHRAGAGA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

disallowed the ITA 870/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 32 depreciation claimed as expense and the amount of Rs.51,69,258/- was added back. 31. The ld. CIT(A) observed, while confirming the AO’s order that with the insertion of sub-section (6) to Section 11

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”.

Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 10,06,000/- is disallowed and added

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”.

Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 10,06,000/- is disallowed and added

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHIVA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. ACE EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHRI GURU GOBIND SINGH FOUNDATION, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHIVA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. ACE EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11