Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 578 - HC - Income TaxExemption u/s 11 - Approval to the respondent-society u/s 80G - the amount in FDRs had enhanced - HELD THAT:- From the averment of the society before the CIT, it was evident that out of total 350 cows, only 20-30 cows were milking. The doubt raised by the CIT was as to how 20-30 cows could produce milk worth ₹ 16,54,634/-. The said doubt was baseless as the CIT was swayed by the figure. If the figure is roughly worked out to the daily amount and if an average price per litre milk is taken as ₹ 40/-, the production would come to 114 litres of milk a day. The objection that the amount in FDRs had enhanced will not enhance the case of the revenue. There is not even an iota of evidence to establish that the amount was not being utilised for the aims and objects of the society but for some other purpose. The amount only gives a protection to the society for daily needs, if the occasion so arises that there is scarcity of funds as the society has almost 350 cows to take care and to feed. It cannot be ruled out that such a cushion may be required considering the nature of the work done by the society. The contention that the society had diverted itself into commercial activities is belied from the ratio of milking and non-milking cows. Out of 350 cows, only 20 to 30 cows were milk yielding. The ratio would be 32:3. The said ratio is a pointer against the plea of revenue. There cannot be any objection if a society while achieving its aims and objects is able to generate some funds so that its daily expenses can be met of its own. There is no quibble on the proposition that registration u/s 12AA itself would not be enough for approval under Section 80G of the Act. The Tribunal has only considered that aims and objects of the society have been found genuine while granting registration u/s 12AA and for granting approval u/s 80G the reasons have been recorded and the denial of approval not sustained. Learned counsel for the revenue has neither been able to show that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous nor any material on record is shown to hold that the order of the Tribunal is legally unsustainable. - Decided against revenue
|