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

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)

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

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

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 to the assessee and benefit of Section 11 would not be available on such an amount. It will be taxable. For example, assessee can purchase an item for Rs.100/- but from a specified person, it has purchased at Rs.120/-, then this excess Rs.20/- will be added to the taxable income of the assessee and benefit of Section 11 will

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 to the assessee and benefit of Section 11 would not be available on such an amount. It will be taxable. For example, assessee can purchase an item for Rs.100/- but from a specified person, it has purchased at Rs.120/-, then this excess Rs.20/- will be added to the taxable income of the assessee and benefit of Section 11 will

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 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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by observing in para 6 & 7 of the assessment order dt. 08/12/2018 as under: 6. I have considered the submission of the assessee, however, the same is not acceptable. As per form 10, during the assessment year preceding the relevant assessment year, the assessee had accumulated funds

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

6. As per Section 24 of the BOCW Act, 1996 (reference supra-mentioned),\nall amounts of cess collected under the Cess Act are required to be\ntransferred to the Welfare Board (constituted under Section 18 of the\nAct), and the said amounts stand credited to the \"Building and Other\nConstruction Workers' Welfare Fund.\" Further, Section

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

6. As per Section 24 of the BOCW Act, 1996 (reference supra-mentioned),\nall amounts of cess collected under the Cess Act are required to be\ntransferred to the Welfare Board (constituted under Section 18 of the\nAct), and the said amounts stand credited to the “Building and Other\nConstruction Workers' Welfare Fund.\" Further, Section

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

6. As per Section 24 of the BOCW Act, 1996 (reference supra-mentioned),\nall amounts of cess collected under the Cess Act are required to be\ntransferred to the Welfare Board (constituted under Section 18 of the\nAct), and the said amounts stand credited to the “Building and Other\nConstruction Workers' Welfare Fund.\"\nFurther, Section

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

6. As per Section 24 of the BOCW Act, 1996 (reference supra-mentioned),\nall amounts of cess collected under the Cess Act are required to be\ntransferred to the Welfare Board (constituted under Section 18 of the\nAct), and the said amounts stand credited to the \"Building and Other\nConstruction Workers' Welfare Fund.\" Further, Section

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”.

6,70,000 to Mrs. Sukhdvinerjit Kaur, Member of the AOP and President of the Society and Rs.3,36,000 to Smt. Paraminderjit Kaur Brara, Member of the AOP and Administrative Officer of the Society. According to the provisions of Section 13(l)(c)(ii ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 11 of the Income

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”.

6,70,000 to Mrs. Sukhdvinerjit Kaur, Member of the AOP and President of the Society and Rs.3,36,000 to Smt. Paraminderjit Kaur Brara, Member of the AOP and Administrative Officer of the Society. According to the provisions of Section 13(l)(c)(ii ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 11 of the Income

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(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

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(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

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(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

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(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

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(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified