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)

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 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

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)

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 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

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)

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 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

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

sections 13(3) and 11(5) of the Act are not attracted in the case of the appellant society. It has also been noticed that under identical circumstances no such disallowance

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

sections 13(3) and 11(5) of the Act are not attracted in the case of the appellant society. It has also been noticed that under identical circumstances no such disallowance

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

sections 13(3) and 11(5) of the Act are not attracted in the case of the appellant society. It has also been noticed that under identical circumstances no such disallowance

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

sections 13(3) and 11(5) of the Act are not attracted in the case of the appellant society. It has also been noticed that under identical circumstances no such disallowance

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

sections 13(3) and 11(5) of the Act are not attracted in the case of the appellant society. It has also been noticed that under identical circumstances no such disallowance

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the assessee. 3. Brief facts relating to the issue as culled out from the order of CIT(A) are that the assessee, M/s Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (hereinafter referred to as ‘CLTA’) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The assessee is also registered as a charitable entity vide order dated

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

5 years, the assessee cannot be allowed to claim the utilization of these accumulated funds in the year in which these are actually utilized as the benefit u/s 11(2) has already been derived in the earlier years. As per section 11 of the Act, the assessee is allowed to accumulate or set apart 15% of the income derived from

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

5). The statutory Cess collected by the appellant does not\npartake the character of income, being neither voluntary contribution nor income\nfrom property held under trust, and its disbursement is not at the discretion of the\nappellant. Hence, such Cess cannot be considered for the purpose of determining\napplication or accumulation under section 11.\n\n2.\nConstitution of the Board

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) of the Income Tax Act. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 10 10.1 While impugning the disallowances, ld. counsel for the assessee

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) of the Income Tax Act. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 10 10.1 While impugning the disallowances, ld. counsel for the assessee

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI GURU GOBIND SINGH FOUNDATION, MOGA

In the result appeal of the Department as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargdci T, C-1 (E) Shri Guru Gobind Singh Foundation Circle- 1 (Exemption) 601/11, Tanki Wali Gali No. 2, Dashmesh Chandigarh Nagar Vs. Moga- Punjab Pan No. – Aadts0332A Appellant Respondent

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s 13(1)(c)& 13(1)(d)of the Income Tax Act and also by invoking section 11(5

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)

disallowance could have been made by applying the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, reliance has correctly been placed on behalf of the assessee, on CBDT Circular No.14 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015, which recognizes that Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act prescribes that income of any University or other educational Institution

K.C.SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST (REGD.),NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 11(5) of the Act does not arise as there is no short fall of application of funds below 85% of total receipt during the relevant previous year. b) During the relevant previous year the Assessee was having following interest free funds on which no interest has been paid as per Balance Sheet annexed (PB-Page 1) i) Corpus