CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

property of the trust for direct or indirect benefit to the persons mentioned u/s 13(3) of the Act. 5.9 Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that conspectus of decisions on the subject provides that at the time of granting registration under section 12AA(1) of the Act, only the objects and purposes are required to be seen

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

property of the trust for direct or indirect benefit to the persons mentioned u/s 13(3) of the Act. 5.9 Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that conspectus of decisions on the subject provides that at the time of granting registration under section 12AA(1) of the Act, only the objects and purposes are required to be seen

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

House No. 60-A, Kitchlu Nagar, CC-III, Ludhiana Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AESPJ2222B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 354/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Bipan Jain The DCIT बनाम C/o Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. CC-III, Ludhiana Chawal Bazar, Ludhiana- 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLPJ0336J अपीलाथ

SHOBHA SHARMA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house on 15/11/2011. However, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed by the assessee. The main reason for denying the exemption claimed by the assessee was that the return of income was not furnished in accordance with the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act. 9.1 On a similar issue the ITAT, SMC “A” Bench, Bangalore in the case

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

50. At this stage, it is important to note that vide finance Act 2012, with retrospective effect from 1.4.2009 has inserted subsection (8) to section 13 of the Act, which read as under: “ [(8) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude any income from the total income of the previous year

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house at B-101, Lagoon Residential\nApartment, Ambience Island, NH-08, Gurgaon for Rs.2,15,90,000/-\nusing the funds of the assessee stating that these allegations have not\nled to any additions or disallowance and there is no need to discuss this\nissue, whereas it is a ground for proving non-charitable object of the\nassessee?\nvii)\nWhether

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court