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

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

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

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

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

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-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

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

disallowing its claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act. 4. Against the said findings and directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that though CPC, Bangalore has initially denied the exemption under section 11 on account of fact that Form

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)

Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act and was not doing charitable activities; that so, the status of ITA 1348 & 1375/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 4 charitable activities was being denied to the assessee and the income of the assessee was being assessed as an AOP. The AO made addition of surplus of Rs.2,92,18,989/-. 6. By virtue

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)

Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act and was not doing charitable activities; that so, the status of ITA 1348 & 1375/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 4 charitable activities was being denied to the assessee and the income of the assessee was being assessed as an AOP. The AO made addition of surplus of Rs.2,92,18,989/-. 6. By virtue

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. K.C. SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST, K.C. TOWER

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

6 estimate notional interest @ 12% on those advances. Upon perusal of the detailed written submission, it is seen that charging notional interest on those advances made in the assessment order is not maintainable. Hence, the AO is directed to delete this addition. The appellant succeeds in this ground and it is allowed in favor of the appellant.” 7. While impugning

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

6 estimate notional interest @ 12% on those advances. Upon perusal of the detailed written submission, it is seen that charging notional interest on those advances made in the assessment order is not maintainable. Hence, the AO is directed to delete this addition. The appellant succeeds in this ground and it is allowed in favor of the appellant.” 7. While impugning

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1100/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 K.C. Social Welfare Trust (Regd.), The Acit (Exemption), K.C. Tower, Chandigarh Road, Vs Circle -1, Nawan Shahr. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatk6129L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajinder Kumar Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

Section 11 and 12. The only exception is disallowance of any amount which was unduly extended by the assessee to the persons mentioned in clause 13(3). Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the orders and relegate both the issues to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The observations made by us will not impair