DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

13 would\ncontemplate that disallowance for the purpose of Section\n13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3) would be worked

M/S ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 823/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Charitable Trust, Circle-1 (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

disallowing the exemption by invoking the provisions of section 13(l)(c) or section 13(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act. In fact there was no diversion of funds to give any advantage to Sh. Anshu Kataria. During the year there was not any payment made in this imprest account and this imprest account stands Nil as of date

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

c), 13(1)(d), 13(3) read with section 11(5) and as to why the exemption claimed may not be disallowed

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

c), 13(1)(d), 13(3) read with section 11(5) and as to why the exemption claimed may not be disallowed

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

c), 13(1)(d), 13(3) read with section 11(5) and as to why the exemption claimed may not be disallowed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

13. A perusal of the above provisions reveals sub section (3) to section 271AA of the Act bars the levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of undisclosed income referred to in sub section (1). The undisclosed income has also been defined under the provisions of section 271AAA

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

c) and 13(l)(d) read with 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 was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under

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

c) and 13(l)(d) read with 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 was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under

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

c) and 13(l)(d) read with 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 was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under

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

c) and 13(l)(d) read with 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 was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under

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

c) and 13(l)(d) read with 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 was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According, disallowance

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

13(1)(c), denied exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive-Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty- According, disallowance