9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 2008-09 onwards after its receipts had crossed Rs. 1 Crore. Earlier it had claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The approval sought by the assessee Society was denied for the second time by the prescribed Authority vide order dated 28.12.2010. Aggrieved, the assessee society filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Petition No. 7735 of 2011. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for passing a fresh order in accordance with the law. Pursuant to the order of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Ld. ommissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. Assessing Officer have wrongly denied the exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving appropriate opportunity and ignoring all merits of the case. 2. That application of exemption has been wrongly denied by the Ld. CCIT, Panchkula despite the same having been allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide its order dated 17.08.2010. The appellant society has re-filed a Civil Writs petition with the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the decision in which case has now come on 09.04.2015 setting aside the order of Hon'ble Chief Commissioner of Income Tax , Panchkula and referred the matter to the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, now the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not given this benefit to the assessee society. 6. That the Ld. Assessing Officer wrongly denied the exemption of Rs. 5228440/- on excess of income over expenditure. 7. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly issued show cause notice under section 271 read with section 274 for concealment of income which is against the facts and the details submitted." 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue stood covered in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Copies of the orders of the ITAT were also placed on record. 4.0 The Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the concurrent findings of both the lower authorities and also highlighted the fact that at the time of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
