TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, assessee is having registration u/s 12A of the Act, therefore, claim of exemption u/s 11 is to be granted - The order of the CIT(A) is confirmed - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 1302/HYD/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2014 - Shri D. Manmohan And Shri Chandra Poojari,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Solgy Jose T Kottaram For the Respondent : None ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, A.M. This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-IV Hyderabad dated 09/07/2013 for the assessment year 2007-08 wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is eligible for claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10(23C)(vi), the exemption should not be denied to the assessee for the AY under consideration. In reply, the assessee stated as follows: "The provisions of section 10(23C) and 11 to 13 of the Act are beneficial provisions. Hence, the provisions that suit more to the organization can be opted by the organization. The preference of one section over another is a matter of procedural convenience and both the sections are having more or less the same monitoring mechanism. It has been claimed that the assessee was registered u/s 12 thereby entitled to the application of the provisions of section 11-13. These provisions allow exemption under specified conditions that (a) exemption was allowable only on the application of the receipts to the obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee at the time of hearing before us. However, we proceed to decide this appeal after hearing the learned DR and on merits. 6. We have heard the learned DR, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the SMC bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of ACIT(Exemptions) vs. Raisatani Siksha Samiti, [2008] 23 SOT 124 (Hyd.) wherein it was held as follows: "Sec. 11 mandates the exclusion of income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes from the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available to any person who has made substantial contribution to the trust or institution, to the member of an HUF which happens to be the author or founder of the trust or institution, to any trustee of the trust or manager of the institution or to any relative of any such author, founder, person, member, trustee or manager as aforesaid. This is provided in s. 12(2) r/w s. 13(3)(b), (c), (cc) or (d). To simplify what is stated above, income derived by a trust running an educational institution or by an educational institution per se is deemed to be the income derived by such trust or institution from property held under trust and will be exempt from income subject to the exceptions provided in s. 13(3). Therefore, there is no gainsaying t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
