Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 512 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement for exemption u/s.11 - violation u/s.13(1)(d) & 13(1)(c) - Held that:- The investment of ₹ 30,00,000/- during the F.Y.2006-07, in the shares of JFSL, which is within the limits of 15% of the income, is deemed to have been made out of the 15% of the income of the trust exempted u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act. This is the only investment made in F.Y. 2006-07 and continued during the F.Y.2007-08, which the Assessing Officer treated as a violation u/s. 13(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act. There are no other investments made in violation of sec. 13(1)(d) w.r.s. 11(5), brought on record by the Assessing Officer. Hence the said investments in the shares of JFSL cannot be considered as a violation u/s.13(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act for the purpose of denying exemption of income u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore the Assessing Officer is not justified in denying exemption of income u/s. 11 of the Act to the assessee on this account. -Decided in favour of assessee Unaccounted loan disbursed - Held that:- Since the advances mentioned in the MIS data base are already reflected in the regular books of the assessee, if the Assessing Officer feels that the loans (based on the blank promotes/ application forms) are actually disbursed as contained in the MIS data base, the said disbursement stands explained and accounted in the books. If the Assessing Officer feels that the amounts in the MIS data base are different loans, then there is no evidence to show that the assessee actually advanced loans to the said SHGs, based on the blank pronotes / application forms. Further, even if it is presumed that there were loans advanced to the said SHGs based on the said blank pronotes/application forms, whether accounted in the books or not, still the same will not amount to violations u/s. 13(l)(c) of the Act as none of the self help groups or SHGs are the persons specified u/s. 13(3) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer in not justified in coming to the conclusion that there were unaccounted loans disbursed to the SHGs etc., and treating the same as a violation u/s. 13(l)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of 10% of administrative expenditure - 80% made by the AO - Held that:- Whatever assessee claimed for expenditure, the burden is on the assessee to produce necessary documents to prove the expenditure that was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of carrying out the objectives of the Trust or for the purpose of business of assessee. Since the assessee has failed to produce books of accounts, the AO forced to estimate the disallowance of administrative expenditure at 80%. The CIT(A) reduced to 10% without any basis. The CIT(A) observed that disallowance of 10% is sufficient in view of the facts of the case. In our opinion, this findings of the CIT(A) is not based with any material brought on record and it is appropriate to remit the issue to the file of AO with a direction to the assessee to produce necessary books of accounts and supporting vouchers and bills to prove the expenditure incurred by the assessee and AO would decide the issue afresh.
|