SH. SOHAN LAL,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -3, PANCHKULA

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

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

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore- Panchkula 134102 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAGPL4435J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26/08/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). 2. That the Learned

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38). 2. That the Learned

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

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

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. But, in view of Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found

NIRMALA RANI L/H OF SH. AZAD SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -1, , PANCHKULA

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

68, Panchkula Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore-134102 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AJBPS8427P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CA Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order

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

section 2(15) there is a paradigm shift from the earlier position. Though, some of the decisions of the Delhi High Court as referred to above and that of the Pb. & Hry. High Court in the case of The Tribune Trust (supra) have been delivered subsequent to the introduction of the second proviso to section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 821/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1 Charitable Trust, बनाम (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L

68 are not attracted which renders the order illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,83,16,171/- treating the entire surplus to be taxable invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act which

SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAEPE4364R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.03.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been

SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

exempt as per the provisions of section 96 of the said act. The reliance was also placed on the following case laws : • ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. as reported in 305 ITR 227(SC) • CIT vs. M/s Motilal Duli Chand 80 CCH 142 (All) • CIT Vs. Satish Kumar Agarwal 66 DTR 68

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

exempt as per the provisions of section 96 of the said act. The reliance was also placed on the following case laws : • ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. as reported in 305 ITR 227(SC) • CIT vs. M/s Motilal Duli Chand 80 CCH 142 (All) • CIT Vs. Satish Kumar Agarwal 66 DTR 68

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

exempt under section 10(38) are to be treated as genuine and they are not to be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

exempt under section 10(38) are to be treated as genuine and they are not to be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68

ITO, WARD (E), CHANDIGARH vs. SANT BABA SUNDER SINGH, BARNALA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

68 of the Act, is effected by the eligibility of the assesses to exempt/on under section 11 of the Act Since the issue of claim of the assessee of exemption

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

68 taxmann.com 270 (Cal) • Principal CIT, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions (I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 67 (Bom) 5.26 The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that Ld. CIT(E) does not exercise any jurisdiction in respect of the person claiming exemption under section

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

68 taxmann.com 270 (Cal) • Principal CIT, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions (I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 67 (Bom) 5.26 The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that Ld. CIT(E) does not exercise any jurisdiction in respect of the person claiming exemption under section

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

68 taxmann.com 270 (Cal) • Principal CIT, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions (I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 67 (Bom) 5.26 The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that Ld. CIT(E) does not exercise any jurisdiction in respect of the person claiming exemption under section

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and\nsubsequently denying claim of exemption u/s 10(38).\n2. That the Learned

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

section 68 of the Act and that as to why the commission @ 6.5% paid in cash to get accommodation entries of exempt

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

section 68 of the Act and that as to why the commission @ 6.5% paid in cash to get accommodation entries of exempt