Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 619 - HC - Income TaxExemption u/s 10(23C) (iv) - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) or not? - Respondent no. 2 rejected petitioner’s application for grant of approval u/s 10(23C) (iv) primarily by invoking the provisions of proviso to Section 2(15) as petitioner is not a charitable institution because it carries on the activities mentioned in the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Since the order of the ITAT for Assessment Year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 has been passed after the impugned order was passed, in our view, respondent no. 2 should be given an opportunity to apply the law as laid down by the ITAT. It will be useful to reproduce paragraph 14 of the judgment of this Court in Indusind Bank Ltd.[ 2023 (7) TMI 135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] As revenue submitted that the order of the ITAT for Assessment Year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 has been challenged in this Court by way of an appeal which is still pending. Further submitted that, therefore, the Revenue has not accepted the findings of the ITAT. The Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. V/s. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] held that the mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not “acceptable” to the department-in itself an objectionable phrase-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. The Court further observed that if this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. Thus as submitted that petitioner is an institution that has been formed and established for promoting, advancing and protecting trade, commerce and industry in India and has been in existence for over 100 years and was established in the year 1907 and petitioner might have chosen not to contest the order for Assessment Year 2013-2014. But that cannot alter the fact that the law, as laid down by the ITAT, is the law on the subject. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23rd September 2015 and remand the matter to respondent no. 2 for de novo consideration.
|