DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that so far as the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the Assessing officer was not justified initiating or levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that so far as the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the Assessing officer was not justified initiating or levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that so far as the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the Assessing officer was not justified initiating or levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that so far as the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the Assessing officer was not justified initiating or levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

12. Another legal ground taken by the assessee which goes to the root of the case is that so far as the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the Assessing officer was not justified initiating or levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That for the year under consideration, the penalty proceeding , if any, that could be initiated

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

c) as well as 13(1)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal has directed the AO to grant benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Act. In other words, if 85% of the income derived by the assessee Trust is being applied towards its objective of education, then no income is to be assessed in the hands

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

c. where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153Aor sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier

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

c. where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153Aor sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier

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

c. where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153Aor sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier

SH. CHETAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Chetan Jain, Vs. The D.C.I.T., B-121, Pushap Vihar, Central Circle-Iii, Canal Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaypj0618H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable, we find no merit in the same. The facts on record point otherwise. Undoubtedly it was the assessee who had surrendered Rs.28 lacs during search. The surrender was never retracted by the assessee. Nothing to this effect is recorded in the orders of the authorities below nor has been brought

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, 72 and 115BBE of the IT. Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the Appellant's case 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and/or add new Grounds of Appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed off. I T A N o . 4 0 8 / C

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning

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

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

section 13(1)(c) is to judge the reasonableness of the payments made to the members of the society and secondly and more importantly, there is no finding of the AO that the society is not working towards the objects of education etc. as defined in its Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. No case of siphoning