DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

6. Now Revenue has come in appeals agitating the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalties, whereas, the assessees apart from taking certain legal grounds/pleas have also filed the cross objections with certain additional grounds in support of their contention that the penalty otherwise is not leviable. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

6. Now Revenue has come in appeals agitating the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalties, whereas, the assessees apart from taking certain legal grounds/pleas have also filed the cross objections with certain additional grounds in support of their contention that the penalty otherwise is not leviable. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

6. Now Revenue has come in appeals agitating the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalties, whereas, the assessees apart from taking certain legal grounds/pleas have also filed the cross objections with certain additional grounds in support of their contention that the penalty otherwise is not leviable. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

6. Now Revenue has come in appeals agitating the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalties, whereas, the assessees apart from taking certain legal grounds/pleas have also filed the cross objections with certain additional grounds in support of their contention that the penalty otherwise is not leviable. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

6. Now Revenue has come in appeals agitating the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalties, whereas, the assessees apart from taking certain legal grounds/pleas have also filed the cross objections with certain additional grounds in support of their contention that the penalty otherwise is not leviable. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone

SANDEEP GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s Vedvan Consultants ITA Nos. 18,09,12,14,15,16,31,32,78-c-22, 394 & 418-c-21 & C.O. 1-c-22- Smt. Madhubala, Punjab & Others , 6 Pvt Ltd., New Delhi ITA No.l312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 which was held

METALMAN AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s Vedvan Consultants ITA Nos. 18,09,12,14,15,16,31,32,78-c-22, 394 & 418-c-21 & C.O. 1-c-22- Smt. Madhubala, Punjab & Others , 6 Pvt Ltd., New Delhi ITA No.l312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 which was held

TEGSONS INDIA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s Vedvan Consultants ITA Nos. 18,09,12,14,15,16,31,32,78-c-22, 394 & 418-c-21 & C.O. 1-c-22- Smt. Madhubala, Punjab & Others , 6 Pvt Ltd., New Delhi ITA No.l312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 which was held

PARMINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s Vedvan Consultants ITA Nos. 18,09,12,14,15,16,31,32,78-c-22, 394 & 418-c-21 & C.O. 1-c-22- Smt. Madhubala, Punjab & Others , 6 Pvt Ltd., New Delhi ITA No.l312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 which was held

ITO, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA vs. SH. SITA RAM SINGLA, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s Vedvan Consultants ITA Nos. 18,09,12,14,15,16,31,32,78-c-22, 394 & 418-c-21 & C.O. 1-c-22- Smt. Madhubala, Punjab & Others , 6 Pvt Ltd., New Delhi ITA No.l312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 which was held

VIDYADHAR TIWARI,BADDI vs. ITO, , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s Vedvan Consultants ITA Nos. 18,09,12,14,15,16,31,32,78-c-22, 394 & 418-c-21 & C.O. 1-c-22- Smt. Madhubala, Punjab & Others , 6 Pvt Ltd., New Delhi ITA No.l312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 which was held

SH. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH,BADDI vs. ITO , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s Vedvan Consultants ITA Nos. 18,09,12,14,15,16,31,32,78-c-22, 394 & 418-c-21 & C.O. 1-c-22- Smt. Madhubala, Punjab & Others , 6 Pvt Ltd., New Delhi ITA No.l312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 which was held

RIDE LINK AUTO,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 7 (1), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s Vedvan Consultants ITA Nos. 18,09,12,14,15,16,31,32,78-c-22, 394 & 418-c-21 & C.O. 1-c-22- Smt. Madhubala, Punjab & Others , 6 Pvt Ltd., New Delhi ITA No.l312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 which was held

SH. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH,BADDI vs. ITO , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 36(l)(va) of the Act which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in M/s Vedvan Consultants ITA Nos. 18,09,12,14,15,16,31,32,78-c-22, 394 & 418-c-21 & C.O. 1-c-22- Smt. Madhubala, Punjab & Others , 6 Pvt Ltd., New Delhi ITA No.l312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021 which was held

M/S SJVN LTD. ( FORMERLY SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED),SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

6 A.Ys.2013-14 & 2014-15 Ltd.'s case the contributions by the assessed is in the forms of donations but if it could be termed as expenditure of the category falling in section 37(1), then the right of the assessee to claim the whole of it as a deduction under section 37(1) cannot be declined. What

M/S SJVN LTD. ( FORMERLY SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED),SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

6 A.Ys.2013-14 & 2014-15 Ltd.'s case the contributions by the assessed is in the forms of donations but if it could be termed as expenditure of the category falling in section 37(1), then the right of the assessee to claim the whole of it as a deduction under section 37(1) cannot be declined. What

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. M/S SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED, SHIMLA

6 A.Ys.2013-14 & 2014-15 Ltd.'s case the contributions by the assessed is in the forms of donations but if it could be termed as expenditure of the category falling in section 37(1), then the right of the assessee to claim the whole of it as a deduction under section 37(1) cannot be declined. What

ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REGD, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

disallowance of the entire amount of Rs. 1,73,73,648/- by applying the provisions of section 115BBC and section 68 of the Act treating corpus donations received from students to be anonymous donations. 8. We find that the not considering the evidence filed by the Assessee during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) is not justified