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)

2) and 11(5) of the Act. Here again the AO found that the assessee had not filed Form no. 10 as required by Sub-section 5 of 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

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)

2) and 11(5) of the Act. Here again the AO found that the assessee had not filed Form no. 10 as required by Sub-section 5 of 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, YAMUNANAGAR 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)

2) and 11(5) of the Act. Here again the AO found that the assessee had not filed Form no. 10 as required by Sub-section 5 of 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

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

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

THE MULLANPUR GARIBDAS CO-OP MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed deduction under section 80P on the interest income earned from the FDs maintained in the banks. It was stated that however, the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 80P on this interest income. It was stated that the issue had not been examined by the AO, nor the assessee had offered any detail regarding claiming deduction

THE MULLANPUR GARIBDAS CO-OP MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,MULLANPUR vs. PR. CIT-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed deduction under section 80P on the interest income earned from the FDs maintained in the banks. It was stated that however, the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 80P on this interest income. It was stated that the issue had not been examined by the AO, nor the assessee had offered any detail regarding claiming deduction

THE MULLANPUR GARIBDAS CO-OP MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR. CIT-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed deduction under section 80P on the interest income earned from the FDs maintained in the banks. It was stated that however, the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 80P on this interest income. It was stated that the issue had not been examined by the AO, nor the assessee had offered any detail regarding claiming deduction

DCIT (E), C-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AGGARWAL VIDYA PRACHARNI SABHA, FARIDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 11(1)(2) of the Act, was not filed anywhere and was just for the records of the assessee. I find merits in the submissions of the appellant and thus I find that addition cannot be made on solely this basis. 14* Secondly while disallowing

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

11,689/- and Rs.76,78,685/- in assessment year 2014- 15 and 2015-16 respectively. These disallowances have also been made with the aid of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3) and 164(2

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

11,689/- and Rs.76,78,685/- in assessment year 2014- 15 and 2015-16 respectively. These disallowances have also been made with the aid of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3) and 164(2

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)

disallowed the accumulation holding the purpose stated was vague and thus the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act was denied

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)

disallowed the accumulation holding the purpose stated was vague and thus the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act was denied

THE JAGADHRI CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD.,JAGADHRI vs. THE PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

11. It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Co-operative Sale Society reported in 392 ITR 74 has held that for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d), the Cooperative bank should be considered as a Cooperative society and in the said decision, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

11,55,479.45 7.8.2 Disallowance of interest on advance to Hero Exports Date Amount No. of Days Disalowance @ 11.25% 01/04/2011 546100000.00 365 6,14,36,250 Thus, total disallowance works out to Rs. 31,25,91,729/-. Less: Disallowance already made by the assessee: Rs. 22,86,36,462/ Disallowance to be made