JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

reassessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at Rs. 6,54,890 and 16 ITA 5273 to 5277/D/19 & 291/D/20 Jaibharat Mandal Ramlila & Dharamshala Society Vs. ITO Rs. 7,67,320 respectively. For the remaining assessment years, that is, 2010- 11, 2012-13 and 2014-15, the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and assessed under section

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

reassessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at Rs. 6,54,890 and 16 ITA 5273 to 5277/D/19 & 291/D/20 Jaibharat Mandal Ramlila & Dharamshala Society Vs. ITO Rs. 7,67,320 respectively. For the remaining assessment years, that is, 2010- 11, 2012-13 and 2014-15, the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and assessed under section

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

reassessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at Rs. 6,54,890 and 16 ITA 5273 to 5277/D/19 & 291/D/20 Jaibharat Mandal Ramlila & Dharamshala Society Vs. ITO Rs. 7,67,320 respectively. For the remaining assessment years, that is, 2010- 11, 2012-13 and 2014-15, the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and assessed under section

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

reassessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at Rs. 6,54,890 and 16 ITA 5273 to 5277/D/19 & 291/D/20 Jaibharat Mandal Ramlila & Dharamshala Society Vs. ITO Rs. 7,67,320 respectively. For the remaining assessment years, that is, 2010- 11, 2012-13 and 2014-15, the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and assessed under section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

reassessment order under appeal. iii. Likewise in subsequent years, there is no denial of exemption u/s 11 in the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission order dt: 27.11.2015 (PB 104-133) and also acknowledgment of the fact that in para 8 to 8.3 at pages 117-118 that the registration u/s 12AA and notification under 10(23C)(vi) has been

FATEH CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ADDL. CIT, MEERUT

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

12A of the Act, they made an alternative claim before the AO for exemption uls 11 & 12 of the Act in the returns filed u/s 148 of the Act for the AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 and consequently sought that the loss or excessive application of income be determined and carried forward for set off in subsequent years

DISTT. RED CROSS SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO (E), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

reassessment proceedings. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee society has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Act by the competent authority vide order dated 21/03/2016, which is effective from assessment year 2016-17. For assessment year 2010-11, no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. In view of cash deposits

DISTT RED CROSS SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, HARYANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

reassessment proceedings. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee society has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Act by the competent authority vide order dated 21/03/2016, which is effective from assessment year 2016-17. For assessment year 2010-11, no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. In view of cash deposits

AP GOYAL CHARITABLE TRUST,EAST DELHI, DELHI INDIA vs. ITO, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

12A of eh Act. The assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) at Nil. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai that assessee has received bogus donation from M./s Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society of Rs.50,00,000/- lacs and based on such information

COMMITMENT MORTALITY VISION EDUCATION SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

147, section 148, Section 149, section 151 and Section 153, where the Assessing officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or asset

COMMITMENT MORTALITY VISION EDUCATION SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

147, section 148, Section 149, section 151 and Section 153, where the Assessing officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or asset

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 153A. 18. In the case of Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court reiterated in paragraph 38 “Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal”. 19. Learned DR has relied upon several decisions

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 153A. 18. In the case of Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court reiterated in paragraph 38 “Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal”. 19. Learned DR has relied upon several decisions

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 153A. 18. In the case of Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court reiterated in paragraph 38 “Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal”. 19. Learned DR has relied upon several decisions

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 153A. 18. In the case of Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court reiterated in paragraph 38 “Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal”. 19. Learned DR has relied upon several decisions

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 153A. 18. In the case of Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court reiterated in paragraph 38 “Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal”. 19. Learned DR has relied upon several decisions

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 153A. 18. In the case of Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court reiterated in paragraph 38 “Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal”. 19. Learned DR has relied upon several decisions

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 153A. 18. In the case of Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court reiterated in paragraph 38 “Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal”. 19. Learned DR has relied upon several decisions