|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 1346 Records
-
2021 (1) TMI 1048
Recovery of erroneous refund of IGST - Refund of the unutilized Input Tax Credit against Export of goods - Applicability of circular dated 4th September 2018, more particularly, the para 3.2 therein with retrospective effect - It is the case of the writ applicant that upon export of goods against a letter of undertaking without payment of tax, it was entitled to refund of the unutilized Input Tax Credit under Section 54(3) of the Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Mr. Sheth, in the alternative, submitted that assuming for the moment that there is nothing wrong with the circular dated 4th September 2018, still, the show cause notice under Section 74 of the Act, could not have been issued for the purpose of taking back the refund, as such a recovery is not permissible in law. If the department is of the view that the refund was wrongly availed and sanctioned, then it should prefer an appeal and not issue a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Act.
Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 2nd March 2021. Let there be an adinterim relief in terms of para 23(D) of this writ application.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1047
Proportionate deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Deduction to the extent of profits attributable to the units where the built up area is below 1500 Sq. Ft. - Whether Tribunal erred in holding that the project completion method is a recognized method of accounting without properly examining as to whether the assessee is entitled to project completion method in the absence of assessee placing regular books of accounts ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2021 (1) TMI 789 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] on close scrutiny of the judgment rendered by this Court in BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD.[2020 (9) TMI 1137 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] it is evident that the first substantial question of law involved in this appeal is no longer res integra. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1046
Addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Appellant has not made any claim that it has not incurred any expenditure for earning the exempt income - as argued assessing officer has not arrived at the mandatory satisfaction as required under section 14A and hence no disallowance is possible - HELD THAT:- AO has not determined the amounts of the expenditure and has not recorded any reasons with regard to correctness of the claim made by the assessee in respect of such expenditure, in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income of the assessee.
AO before embarking upon determination of the amount of expenditure incurred in the light of the exempted income, has to record a finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure. The aforesaid mandatory requirement has not been fulfilled by the Assessing Officer before disallowing the assessee under Section 14A - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1045
Capital gain - transfer of property u/s 2(47) - assessee had sold certain properties and had not paid capital gains - proceedings under Section 153C of the Act read with Section 143(3) were initiated - HELD THAT:- Perusal of relevant clauses of the Power of Attorney which was executed on the same day, it is evident that all rights in the property including the possession constructively infact has been handed over by the assessee to the purchaser. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid transaction is the same within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act and the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly treated the same to be a transaction of sale. However, the Tribunal, without taking into account the incriminating material on record, merely on the basis of the fact that the possession of the property under the agreement was not delivered, has held the same to be not sale. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1044
Entitlement of Refund without challenging the order of assessment which has attained finality - Applicability of N/N. 10 of 2006 - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) [2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT] has held that under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, a claim for refund can be made by any person who had (a) paid duty in pursuance of an order of assessment or (b) a person who had borne the duty. It has further been held that unless the order of assessment can be reviewed under Section 28 of the Act and / or modified in an appeal, that order of assessment stands. The duty would be payable as per the order of assessment. It has also been held that refund claim is not an appeal proceeding and an officer considering a refund claim cannot sit in the appeal over an assessment made by a competent officer and cannot review an order of assessment - In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that a person is not entitled to claim refund of duty without challenging an order of assessment. In the facts of the case, there is no material placed on record to show that there is any challenge made to the assessment order.
Applicability of N/N. 10/2006 dated 01.03.2006 - HELD THAT:- In the factual situation of the case and in view of the fact that even though under Entry No.4 of the Tariff Notification, the items mentioned therein are exempted for payment of customs duty, however, until and unless the respondent challenges the order of assessment, he is bound to pay the customs duty as assessed. He is not entitled to the benefit of refund - the substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1043
Exemption u/s 11 - activities of the assessee in the nature of commerce / trade or not? - Tribunal justified considering the activity of the assessee as engaged in the development of urban area which is in the nature of advancement of general public utility not hit by the newly introduced first and second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act without considering the merit of the issue? - HELD THAT:- The questions of law, as proposed by the Revenue are no longer res-intigra in view of the decision of this Court in case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT [2017 (5) TMI 1468 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] all the questions of law as proposed stand squarely covered by the decision of this Court in case of AUDA (supra).
-
2021 (1) TMI 1042
Inadvertent mistake in self-assessed Bills of Entry - Seeking Direction to the respondents to reassess the customs duty - 8 Slot Single Chassis (Cisco Routers) - Correction of Customs Tarrif Heading (CTH) from 85176990 to 85176930 - Stand taken in the affidavit is that petitioner had imported goods declared as routers under five Bills of Entry bearing Nos.2434172, 2436049, 2522910, 2805152 and 2968920 - whether request of the petitioner for correction of inadvertent mistake or error in the self-assessed Bills of Entry and consequential passing of orders for re-assessment is legal and valid? - availability of remedy of appeal.
HELD THAT:- The scheme of section 17 from the perspective of the importer (since in this case we are dealing with imports) is that an importer upon entering his imported goods is required to self assess the duty leviable on such imported goods. This is subject to verification and examination by the proper officer. If upon verification or examination etc. the proper officer fnds that the self assessment is not done correctly, he may re-assess the duty leviable on such goods. In a case where re-assessment is contrary to self assessment and where the importer does not confirm his acceptance of such re-assessment, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the reassessment - therefore, it is quite evident that though duty is cast upon an importer to self assess the customs duty leviable on the imported goods, a corresponding duty is also cast upon the proper officer to verify and examine such self assessment. Such verification and examination has to be done in good faith and in the process of verification or examination if the proper officer finds that there is mis-classification of tariff head or wrong classification of tariff head of the imported goods leading to lesser levy of customs duty or excess levy of customs duty, he has the power and authority under sub-section (4) to make re-assessment and re-assess the duty leviable on such goods.
From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Customs Act, it is evident that customs authorities have the power and jurisdiction to make corrections of any clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising in any decision or order due to any accidental slip or omission at any time which would include an order of self-assessment post out of charge.
In the instant case, petitioner has not sought for any refund on the basis of the self-assessment. It has sought re-assessment upon amendment of the Bills of Entry by correcting the customs tariff head of the goods which would then facilitate the petitioner to seek a claim for refund. This distinction though subtle is crucial to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the one which was adjudicated by the Supreme Court and by this Court - Grievance of the petitioner is not on the merit of the self-assessment as the petitioner is aggrieved by the failure on the part of the respondents to carry out amendment in the Bills of Entry by replacing the incorrect CTH by the correct one namely by replacing CTH '85176990' with '85176930' which was declared inadvertently by the petitioner at the time of fling the Bills of Entry. This request of the petitioner, falls squarely within the domain of section 149 read with section 154 of the Customs Act. Upon amendment in the Bills of Entry by correcting the CTH, consequential re-assessment order under section 17(4) of the Customs Act would be in order.
Madras High Court in M/S. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [2020 (10) TMI 970 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] correctly held that in a case of correction of inadvertent error, the appropriate remedy would be seeking an amendment to the Bills of Entry and not fling of appeal because there is no legal flaw in the order of self-assessment amenable to appeal but only a factual mistake which can be rectified by way of amendment or correction.
The petitioner has made out a case for issuance of a direction to the respondents for correction of the mistake or error in classification of the goods from CTH '85176990' to '85176930' and thereby for amendment of the Bills of Entry. Refusal of the respondents to look into the aforesaid grievance of the respondents is therefore not justified - Direction issued.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1041
Revision u/s 263 - Eligibility of benefit of deduction under Section 10A - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the period of 10 consecutive years would start from Assessment Year l995-96 and would end with Assessment Year 2008-09 - period of 10 year commences from 1995-96 irrespective of the fact that whether or not the assessee has claimed benefit in between the Assessment Years and the period of 10 consecutive years therefore, in view of the plain language of the enactment cannot be extended.
AO without examining the aforesaid aspect of the matter granted the benefit of deduction Section 10A of the Act to the assessee. The view taken by the AO cannot but be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The view taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be a plausible view.
No reasons have been assigned by the Assessing Officer for holding the assessee eligible for benefit of deduction under Section 10A - Since, the issue with regard to eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 10A of the Act for Assessment Year 2008-09 beyond a period of 10 consecutive years was not subject matter of order of assessment itself. Therefore, the same could not have been the subject matter of the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and thus, in the fact situation of the case there was no bar in invoking the powers under Section 263 - The income of the assessee from staffing, which was not an income from export of computer software was also allowed by the Assessing Officer without any application of mind and without any enquiry. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly invoked the powers under Section 263 - Decided against assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1040
Disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that if there is no exempt income, there can be no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. [ 2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The net effect of these decisions is that the disallowance u/s 14A gets restricted to the extent of exempt income, even if the provisions of the section are attracted. - Decided against revenue.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1039
CENVAT Credit - Reinsurance services obtained directly from the Indian reinsurers - Reinsurance service obtained under Indian Motor Third Party Insurance Pool - recovery of credit under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 73(1) and Section 73(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 - interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 - penalty imposed under rule 15(4) effective up to 26.02.2010 or 15(3) effective from 27.02.2010 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - period subsequent April 01, 2011, when the definition of ‘input service’ was amended by adding an exclusion clause in rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Rules - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the exclusion clause shows that its scope is limited to those general insurance services, which relate to a motor vehicle. Use of the word ‘a’ assumes significance here, also considering the exception drawn in the exclusion clause.
In the instant case, the reinsurance services availed by the Appellant are for insuring its business risks and not in respect of any particular motor vehicle. Reinsurance, by its nature, pertains to the insurance of business of the Appellant. Reinsurance services have never been availed by the Appellant in respect of a particular motor vehicle. In such a case, the above exclusion clause has no applicability to the present case and denial of CENVAT credit on basis of such a clause is not sustainable.
Thus, even after the amendment of the definition of ‘input service’ in rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Rule w.e.f. April 01, 2011, the appellant would be eligible to avail CENVAT credit on both the aforesaid reinsurance services - It would, therefore, not be necessary to examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that by confirming the demand for the period w.e.f. April 01, 2011, the order has gone beyond the scope of the allegation made in the show cause notice or that extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is not possible to sustain that part of the order of the Commissioner that confirms the demand of CENVAT Credit of ₹ 196,46,97,360/- with interest and penalty - Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1038
Capital Gain (LTCG) or Business income - Exemption u/s 54F - AO took the view that the assessee was engaged in an adventure of the nature of trade and therefore the income declared under the head “capital gains” is to be taxed under the head Income from Business - HELD THAT:- Intention at the time of purchase was to construct a house for self occupation and that intention was given up due to the fact that the land was outside Mysore city and due to financial crunch. Therefore the tests laid down in the decisions support the plea of the Assessee that he did not do any adventure in the nature of trade when he sold the larger extent of property after dividing them into smaller sites. The dates of acquisition of the property and its conversion into sites and obtaining approval and the dates of sale by the Assessee all go to show his intention at the time of acquisition was not with a view to indulge in an adventure in the nature of trade. The case of B.Narasimha Reddy [1984 (7) TMI 72 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
Thus gain on sale of land is to be regarded as income under the head “capital gain”. Consequently, the Assessee should be entitled to all the deductions permissible while computing income under the head “Capital Gain”.is a decision on facts of that case.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1037
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- As the entire investments have been made out of own funds and no borrowed funds have been used. However, we are of the considered view that for earning exempt income, some expenditure needs to be disallowed. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we are of the opinion that a disallowance of ₹ 2 lakhs should meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to restore the disallowance u/s 14A to ₹ 2 lakhs. Ground taken in Memorandum of appeal is partly allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1036
Disallowance of interest - HELD THAT:- We agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for assessee that there was no case for disallowance of the amount on account of interest expenses. We direct the AO to delete this amount. Accordingly, first ground of appeal is allowed.
Disallowance of rent paid - HELD THAT:- The assessee has also made a reference to Section 38 of I.T. Act for apportionment of expenses U/s 38 of I.T. Act. Under Section 38 of I.T. Act, a portion of the expenses is allowable to the assessee as deduction, having regard to use of the premises / building for the purposes of assessee’s business. We find that the lower authorities – the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) - have not considered the applicability of Section 38 of I.T. Act; and further, that the relevant facts are not available on the records on the basis of which fair apportionment can be made. Moreover, neither the assessee has furnished details for such apportionment; nor the lower authorities - the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A)-have considered apportionment of expenses U/s 38(1) - We are of the view that the relevant facts for deciding this ground of appeal are not available on records of the Tribunal; and that these relevant facts are needed to be brought on record. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO with the direction to pass a fresh order as per law for deciding the issue regarding allowability of rent paid after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
Disallowance towards director remuneration - HELD THAT:- Whether the assessee has deducted tax at source under Section 192 of I.T. Act in respect of the disputed amount of enhanced remuneration paid to the Director, is also not available on our record. We find that the lower authorities, AO as well as Ld. CIT(A), have also not examined these aspects; and have not brought relevant facts on record. We find that for the purposes of Section 40A(2) relevant facts pertaining to enhanced remuneration paid to the Director, such as free market value, legitimate needs of assessee’s business and benefit derived by / accruing to the assessee are not available on the records. For deciding this ground of appeal are not available on records of the Tribunal; and that these relevant facts are needed to be brought on record. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO with the direction to pass a fresh order as per law on the dispute under second ground of appeal.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1035
Acquisition of foreign exchange - not bringing into India the goods of the value, quantity and quality for which foreign exchange was acquired by the parties through the appellant bank by seeking remittance on the basis of import documents which are allegedly later found to be not genuine - contravention of Section 8(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, (FERA) 1973 and Section 8(2) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973 - delay of more than two years in passing the impugned order - HELD THAT:- Without going into the merit of the case and without opining on merit, on the short question of delay in delivering the order, the appeal filed by M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. is allowed - The impugned order dated 09.03.2009 passed on Show Cause Notice bearing no. T-4/1-B/SDE/AKB/2002-SCN-I dated 04.01.2002 read with corrigendum dated 13.02.2002, limited to the present appellant, is set-aside and the case is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for deciding it afresh in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority shall decide the case relating to the present appellant on all legal and factual issues after affording opportunities to both the parties i.e. M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. and the Enforcement Directorate.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1034
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus purchases disallowed - HELD THAT:- Assessee is unable to produce the actual delivery/physical delivery of goods but it is a fact that the AO has not doubted the sales made by assessee or even the payments were made by account payee cheques. Once this is a fact that once sales are not doubted, the entire purchases cannot be considered as bogus and that is also a presumption. Mere on presumption, penalty cannot be levied. Hence, we confirmed the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty and dismissed this appeal of revenue.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1033
Levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in both the charges that means he is not sure about which charges, the assessee has committed the default. Hence, this issue is squarely covered by the decision in case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Hence, on this count, we deleted the penalty.
As regards to merits of the case, we noted that the assessee has filed complete ledger account, purchase bills, delivery challans in respect of purchase transactions made with Nimesh Steel Pvt. Ltd for purchase value of ₹ 5,75,536/- and also payment made by account payee cheque. The assessee could not produce only the purchase party for examination of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer levied penalty only on this count. We noted that this cannot be the reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) because the Assessing Officer is unable to prove the concealment of income in this case. Hence, we delete the penalty and allowed the appeal of assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1032
Nature of expenditure - expenditure as license fee payment to M/s. Remfry and Sagar Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (RSCPL) for use of goodwill of ‘Remfry & Sagar’ and to practice in this name - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that amount of deduction claimed by the assessee on the amount of licence fee paid to RSCPL is allowable as expenditure u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. So, ground no.1 is determined against the Revenue.
Travelling expenses and entertainment expenses - ad hoc disallowance of 5% - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that none of the expenditure can be disallowed merely on the basis of surmises. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) shows that he has followed the earlier year’s order passed by the ld. CIT (A) allowing the identical expenditure.
When undisputedly entries in the books of account qua the claimed expenditure have not been questioned in any manner whatsoever ad hoc disallowance made by the AO to the extent of 5% of the expenditure of travelling expenses and entertainment expenses is not sustainable in the eyes of law. So, we find no scope to interfere into the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A), hence ground no.2 is determined against the Revenue.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1031
Direction to Respondent to permit the Advocate, Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary of the Corporate Debtor/ Applicant to attend the meetings of Committee of Creditors - Direction to Respondent to provide the copies of all documents in connection with the CIRP process to the mentioned professionals - HELD THAT:- From Regulation 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, it is clear that the Resolution Professional has the power and responsibility to monitor and manage the operations and assets of the enterprise. The professional will manage the resolution process of negotiation to ensure balance of power between the creditors and debtor, in order to protect the rights of all creditors. The professional has to ensure the reduction of asymmetry of information between creditors and debtor in the resolution process.
Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides that if there are Financial Creditors to Corporate Debtor, only Financial Creditor can attend and vote in the meeting. Directors and partners can only attend the meeting of Committee but shall not have any right of voting and their absence does not invalidate any of the proceedings, which means that even if they are allowed to attend the meeting of Committee of Creditors, they will be only silent spectators and they have no say on any of the transactions in the proceedings - This Tribunal is of the view that by allowing the Advocate/ CA/ Company Secretary of the Corporate Debtor no purpose will be served. The Corporate Debtor itself is sufficient to provide any of the documents/papers/details sought by the Resolution Professional during the proceedings.
Providing of copies of all documents in connection with the CIRP process to the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- As rightly stated by the Resolution Professional it is the discretion of the Resolution Professional to appoint Accountants, legal and other professionals following the due process as specified by the IBBI under Section 25(2)(d) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and that Resolution Professional is not permitted to disclose any information pertaining to the CIRP to any third parties including Advocate/ CA/ Company Secretary this prayer also cannot be granted.
This Tribunal cannot travel beyond the IBC Regulations and pass orders contrary to the Regulations - Application dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1030
Nature of expenditure - expenditure incurred for development of a new product including knowhow - assessee manufacturing auto electrical parts incurred expenditure for setting up separate cell for developing import substitute parts - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- In this case, the facts are identical to the facts considered in the case of CIT Vs Denso India Ltd [2009 (7) TMI 144 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing LED lights, was purchasing certain raw materials till assessment year 2010-11, but from the assessment year 2013-14, it started manufacturing substitute of purchases for which certain expenditure have been incurred for development of the product which are purely revenue in nature.
Although, the assessee has considered said expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure, pending amortization in the financial statement, but because of nature of expenditure the same has been claimed as deduction u/s.37(1) in the statement of total income.
Thus expenditure incurred by the assessee being technical consultancy charges, purchase of raw materials, advertisement charges and electricity charges are in the nature of revenue expenditure, which does not give any enduring benefit to the assessee and hence, same cannot be treated as capital expenditure. Hence we, direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction towards expenditure as claimed by the assessee in the statement of total income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1029
Exemption u/s 11 - AO rejected accumulation of income u/s.12AA on the ground that the assessee has accumulated its income not for specific purpose, but merely to defer taxation of surplus of amount which has not been applied towards its objects in the corresponding accounting period - HELD THAT:- Once assessee has accumulated income with a specific purpose and such purpose is specified in the main objects of the trust, then the Assessing Officer cannot deny such accumulation of income merely for the reason that purpose specified in Form No.10 is vague and general in nature. As long as objects of the trust provide for such purpose, then the assessee can accumulates funds for the purpose which is specified in trust deed.
This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT (Exemption) vs. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust reported in [2018 (10) TMI 995 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that lack of declaration in Form No.10 regarding specific purpose for which funds were being accumulated by the assessee trust would not be fatal to the exemption claimed u/s.11(2) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court [2019 (3) TMI 1405 - SC ORDER] has dismissed SLP filed by the Department in the above case and has upheld the findings of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.
In this case, on perusal of facts available on record, clause 4k of trust deed provides for extending help and relief to distressed and destitute, homeless and underprivileged and funds accumulated u/s.11(2) is covered under main objects of the trust.
AO as well as learned CIT(A) has erred in denying benefit of accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Act. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made towards denial of accumulation of income u/s.11 (2) of the Act and direct him to allow benefit of accumulation as claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
