PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA vs. MS SOLAN DISTRICT TRUCK OPERATORS TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD DARLAGHAT THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT

Bench: This Court. 2. On 29Th March 2019, The State Of Hp Filed The Objections Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (After Now Called ‘The Arbitration Act’) Against The Award Of Ld. Arbitrator Announced On 8Th December 2018. Since The Period Of Three Months Expired On 9Th March, Hence The Objections Accompanied An Application Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration Act To Condone The Delay On The Grounds That The Objections Were Filed Within Permissible 30 Days After The Expiry Of The Statutory Period Of Three Months. 1Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment?

4]. Having regard to the proviso to section 34(3) of the Act, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply in regard to petitions under section 34 of the Act. While section 5 of the Limitation Act does not place any outer limit in regard to the period of delay that could be condoned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. THE TIBETIAN CHILDREN VILLAGE

Accordingly the same are dismissed alongwith pending

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

Section 148 as invalid on the ground that the notice was based only on change of opinion and there was no escapement of income? 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in holding that specific purpose donation are voluntary contributions in the hands of the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. THE TIBETIAN CHILDREN VILLAGE

Accordingly the same are dismissed alongwith pending

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

Section 148 as invalid on the ground that the notice was based only on change of opinion and there was no escapement of income? 2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in holding that specific purpose donation are voluntary contributions in the hands of the assessee

SHIVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the ITA is allowed

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

condonation of delay, if the delay exceeded period of six months from the end of the month in which the order is passed as per amended Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Ax, 1961. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the Tribunal had wrongly noted the date of filing the Miscellaneous Application