DAWATE ISLAMI HIND UTTARAKHAND,FAIZAN E RAMZAN MASJID vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PRATYAKSH KAR BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year 2021-22 To 2023-24 Dawate Islami Hind Vs. Cit (Exemption) Uttarakhand, Faizan E Uttarakhand Ramzan Masjid, Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand Pan No. Aadtd5207B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 12AB of the Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant-assessee filed application in Form 10AB for registration on 30.09.2023 under Rules 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. A notice was issued to the applicant on 11.01.2024 and 08.02.2024 were issued but assessee failed to file reply. Therefore

CHAUDHARY HARCHAND SINGH ATMA RAM EDUCATION TRUST,ROORKEE vs. CIT(E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No.6240/Del./2017: Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Chaudhary Harchand Singh Atma Vs Cit(E), Ram Education Trust, Lucknow C/O. Parikshit Aggarwal Fca, House No. 1238, Sec-22B, Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtc2457J Assessee By : Sh. None Revenue By : Smt. Mayank Prabha Tomar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2022

trust or institution and may also make such inquiries, as he may deem necessary in this behalf. Said provision in section 12AA makes it clear that CIT is not supposed to allow registration with blind eyes. On perusal of the Income and Expenditure Account of the previous years it is found that the sole objective of the company

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

charitable trust running an educational institution under the name of Shri Krishna Institute of Technology and Shri Krishna Institute of Polytechnic. The assessee trust was granted registration on 09.12.1996. The trust has been approved for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula vide his order dated 30.10.2008 effective from

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

charitable trust running an educational institution under the name of Shri Krishna Institute of Technology and Shri Krishna Institute of Polytechnic. The assessee trust was granted registration on 09.12.1996. The trust has been approved for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula vide his order dated 30.10.2008 effective from

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

charitable trust running an educational institution under the name of Shri Krishna Institute of Technology and Shri Krishna Institute of Polytechnic. The assessee trust was granted registration on 09.12.1996. The trust has been approved for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula vide his order dated 30.10.2008 effective from

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

charitable trust running an educational institution under the name of Shri Krishna Institute of Technology and Shri Krishna Institute of Polytechnic. The assessee trust was granted registration on 09.12.1996. The trust has been approved for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula vide his order dated 30.10.2008 effective from

M/S SUSHILA DEVI CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH,DEHRADUN vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), KANPUR (JAO- DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

6. It is further submitted that the order under Section 127 dated 04.07.2024 merely transfers assessment files from one Assessing Officer to another. Section 127 falls under Chapter XIII dealing with assessment jurisdiction and does not, and cannot, enlarge or reallocate statutory powers vested in a particular Commissioner. The legislature has consciously bifurcated assessment functions and registration functions under separate

RAJPUT PANCHAYAT DHARMSHALA,HARIDWAR, UTTRAKHAND vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Charitable Trust (2023) 150 taxmann.com 311(Surat Trib.) 4.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that had the AO treated both ITRs defective in accordance with the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act after affording atleast one opportunity to file Form 10B to cure the said defect; the assessee would have done the needful. Since there was no time

RAJPUT PANCHAYAT DHARMSHALA,HARIDWAR, UTTRAKHAND vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Charitable Trust (2023) 150 taxmann.com 311(Surat Trib.) 4.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that had the AO treated both ITRs defective in accordance with the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act after affording atleast one opportunity to file Form 10B to cure the said defect; the assessee would have done the needful. Since there was no time

SHIV RATAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARIDWAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable or religious trusts or institutions. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason ‘large claim of depreciation for trust - whether asset itself has been claimed as application of income’. During the course of assessment proceedings in terms of reply dated 05.08.2021 assessee stated that in the return of income filed, inadvertently deprecation was claimed

SHRI NARAYAN TRUST,SRINAGAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleshri Narayan Trust Vs Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Near Base Hospital, Srikot Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Ganganali, Up 226010 Srinagar (Gwl), 246174 Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable purposes’ as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. V. The Appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The applicant society/trust filed an application for registration u/s 12A(a) of the Income

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

6. That without prejudice to the above the ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- made by AO at CPC u/s 143(1)(ii) through automated process u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by applying the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Income

BALJEET SADHNA KENDER TRUST ,HARIDWAR vs. CIT(E) , LUCKNOW

In the result appeal i.e

Bench: Shrir. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable nature of the objects and genuineness of the activities.Despite being provided timely opportunity the applicant has not been able to substantiate its claim. Ld. Commissioner further held that I am unable to accept the applicant’s claim in absence of sufficient material required for formation of satisfaction. 3. Before us the ld. AR of the Assessee contended that though

BALJEET SADHNA KENDER TRUST ,HARIDWAR vs. CIT(E) , LUCKNOW

In the result appeal i.e

Bench: Shrir. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable nature of the objects and genuineness of the activities.Despite being provided timely opportunity the applicant has not been able to substantiate its claim. Ld. Commissioner further held that I am unable to accept the applicant’s claim in absence of sufficient material required for formation of satisfaction. 3. Before us the ld. AR of the Assessee contended that though