|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1666 Records
-
2017 (10) TMI 1469
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of reasons to believe - non independent application of mind by AO - HELD THAT:- AO has not applied his mind while recording his reasons without assigning any valid reasons that no reasons have been given to make out a case that income of the assessee has escaped assessment for the impugned assessment year. Such vague reasons without the application of mind cannot give rise to acquisition or jurisdiction by the AO for the reassessment and therefore same are directed to be quashed.
AO issued notice u/s 148 of Act on the wrong and invalid assumption of Jurisdictional and all subsequent proceedings is pursuance thereto can’t be held as sustainable and valid hence, the same deserve to be quashed and we quash the same. See G & G PHARMA INDIA LTD. [2015 (10) TMI 754 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1468
Characterization of income - Income from sale of shares - STCG or Business income - HELD THAT:- Shares were purchased with a view to sell them at a profit and in fact, those shares were sold within the same accounting year, the conduct of the assessee was not to hold them as investment and earn some interest but to trade in shares. It was clear from the frequency and nature of transactions in shares. In the absence of any material to show that assessee had made investments only, the authorities below were correct in concluding that gains were assessable as business income.
Assessee, however, relied upon the decision in the case of Rohit Anand [2009 (7) TMI 901 - ITAT DELHI] in which assessee had demonstrated that his intention was never to trade in shares. In the case of Vinod N. Shah [2010 (2) TMI 875 - ITAT, MUMBAI] it was found that on an average there was only 3-4 cases of purchase and sale of shares during a month. These decisions, therefore, would not support the case of the assessee.
The authorities below have rightly assessed the income from "profits and gains of business as from shares" and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1467
Claim about rate of taxes - assessee had objected to the rate of tax applicable to domestic companies and co-operative banks were also applicable to it in accordance with the provisions of Article-26 (non discrimination) of Indo French Tax Treaty - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case Reference was made to non-discrimination clause in the Treaty, as per which there should not be any discrimination between the domestic and the non-resident company. The Tribunal, however, referred to the Explanation in the Section 90, inserted in the IT Act with retrospective effect from 01-04- 1962 as per which the higher tax rate in case of foreign company, should not be regarded as violation of non-discrimination clause. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. J.K. Synthetics [2001 (2) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] . The Tribunal accordingly, rejected the ground raised by the assessee. The facts in the present appeal are identical and, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s BNP Paribas [2014 (7) TMI 1305 - ITAT MUMBAI] we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee.
Payment made by India Branch to Overseas Branch / HO - data processing fees paid by Indian Branch office of the assessee to its Singapore branch under Article-13 of the India France tax Treaty - HELD THAT:- As decided in [2016 (3) TMI 1355 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held since the issue under consideration is covered not only by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY 2001-02 to 2003-04 but also by the order of the ITAT’s Special Bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation [2012 (4) TMI 80 - ITAT MUMBAI] we hold that the department was not justified in subjecting to tax the interest paid by the Indian Branch of the assessee to its head office and overseas branches applying the provisions of Article 12 of India-France Tax Treaty.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1466
Exemption U/s.11 & 12 denied - Assessee is a trade association registered as charitable society registered U/s. 12AA of the Act, engaged in the activity of importing & distributing wattle extract to the members of the society - case was selected for scrutiny - CIT(A) held the issue in favour of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The case is squarely covered by the decision of the Chennai Benches of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years on the same issue, as pointed out by the Ld.AR and it is not in dispute. DR also confirmed the fact that the Revenue has filed the appeal to keep the issue alive since they have carried the matter before higher judicial forum.
In this situation, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) because he has only followed the decision of the Chennai bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier years on the identical issue. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) is sustained.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1465
Disallowance of expenditure u/s.36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 40A(2)(b)(iv) - commission paid to working directors and other employees - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) considered the fact that the commission was paid as per the Board Resolution and Authorisation of the Board of Directors. The CIT(A) also held that the services rendered are proportionate to the commission paid by the assessee. She also discussed the fact that recipients of the commission have paid the taxes on the said commission at the highest tax rate.
So far as the contention of the AO on the commission issue paid to relatives, she mentioned about not bringing any comparable cases to demonstrate the unreasonableness or excessiveness of the same. Therefore, in our view, the view taken by the CIT(A) on this issue is one of the possible conclusions. The order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable on this issue and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - sufficiency of own funds - HELD THAT:- We find it is obvious inference that assessee has adequate interest free funds and assessee also earned profits in the current year. All these funds are sufficient enough to take care of the investments considering the principle of presumption, laid down in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Therefore, in our view, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue requires reversal on this issue. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee to the extent of disallowance of ₹ 27,29,202/- stands deleted.
Regarding disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) read with Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, we are of the opinion that the same requires to be confirmed in the absence of any specific arguments on this issue. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee to this extent is partly allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1464
Unaccounted purchases - method for discerning the cost of the raw material - GP adoption - Excess Stock - Addition made on the basis of Mr. J.P. Agarwal’s statement, recorded during the course of search proceedings - HC decided the issue in favour of revenue [2017 (1) TMI 514 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1463
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on account of interest and dividend income earned and rental income earned for letting out of godown, etc. - section 14A r.w.r. 8D applicability while working out the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - HELD THAT:- We find that the Ld. DR has rightly pointed out that the issue has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. [2011 (3) TMI 615 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein the applicability of the said section has been upheld.
Applicability of rule 8D r.w.s. 14A has been upheld in the case of the assessee by the Tribunal and accepted by the assessee in preceding years. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the assessee that section 14A r.w.r. 8D is not to be applied for the purpose of calculating the deduction allowable u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
Enough surplus funds which are interest free and which is demonstrated from the quantum of share capital and reserves available with the assessee over the years - If an assessee establishes that its interest free funds were equal to or more than the interest bearing funds it would be open to it to contend that presumption arises that the expenditure for earning interest income was incurred from out of its interest free funds warranting no disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. Disallowance made on account of interest expenditure as per rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules be deleted.
We direct that the expenses to be disallowed under rule 8D(2)(ii) be calculated by taking into account only those investments which have earned income during the year.
Section 14A r.w.r. 8D is applicable for working out the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) by the assessee and that no disallowance of interest expenditure is allowable as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) while the expenditure to be disallowed as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) is to be calculated by taking into consideration only those investments which have earned income during the year.
Denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) - rental income earned by it from letting out of godowns for storage processing etc. - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the assessee had been denied claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) of the Act by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) following the order of the CIT(Appeals) in assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12. As rightly pointed out by assessee in the said order the assessee had been denied deduction for want of evidence substantiating his claim of having earned rental income by letting out of godowns, warehousing, etc.
As also rightly pointed out by the assessee the said evidence in the present case had admittedly been filed before the Ld.CIT(Appeals). Clearly, therefore, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) had erred in following his order for assessment year 2011-12 and dismissing assessee’s claim for deduction for want of evidence when the same had actually been filed before him - restore the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate the issue afresh in the light of evidences filed by the assessee substantiating his claim and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1462
Bogus purchases - disallowance of 15% of the purchases made from SKS - books of accounts of the appellant were not rejected u/s 145 - HELD THAT:- Looking at the entirety of facts and circumstances i.e. the books of accounts being not rejected & consumption of cotton having comparatively decreased, we are inclined to follow our judgment in the case of Anuj Kumar Varshney [2015 (4) TMI 533 - ITAT JAIPUR] and direct to restrict the disallowance to 15% of purchases from SKS. Thus assessee’s appeals are partly allowed - We are of the opinion that the 15% disallowance restricted by the tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for. -Decided against assessee.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1461
Registration u/s. 12AA(3) - C.l.T(Exemption) cancelling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) on the ground that the assessee received cash in exchange of donation without any evidence that the assessee had received cash for payment of donation - addition made on statement taken during the survey - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.The Trust is giving donation for charitable activities. The donation given by assessee Trust to Gobind Ram Goel Charitable Trust Kolkata, was not bogus donation because Ld CIT(E) did not bring any cogent evidence on record to prove it bogus except statement taken during the survey of Sri Anand Agarwal.
The statement taken during the survey of Sri Anand Agarwal ,Trustee, of M/s Gobind Ram Goel Charitable Trust when such statement itself was not admissible as evidence and further the said Sri Anand Agarwal and other alleged intermediaries were not produced for cross examination inspite of specific request by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee trust is not part of the group of M/s Gobind Ram Goel Charitable Trust.
Considering the factual position discussed above, we quash the order of CIT(E) and we also direct the CIT(E), to grant the registration U/s 12A - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1460
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - whether the assessee is a co- operative society or a co-operative bank? - HELD THAT:- No finding is forthcoming regarding the aspect of the activities carried out by the respondent- assessee, whether as a co-operative society or not. In the absence of such factual finding, the legal propositions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be applied. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the AO to the effect whether the assessee comes within the realm of co-operative society to get entitlement of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Hence, we remand the matter to the AO to answer this question and then decide the matter in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Limited [2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT] as expeditiously as possible. Thus, without rendering any finding on the substantial question of law raised, order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal impugned herein, is set aside. We direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations aforesaid.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1459
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - disallowing the provision for development expenses made by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The first finding of the ld. CIT is to the effect that assessment order has been passed in a casual manner and without application of mind. In our consideration with the above correspondence, evidence and discussions during the course of assessment proceedings do not substantiate these adverse observations of ld. CIT. Consequently we are unable to agree that assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this score.
Apropos the allowability of JDA development charges as business expenditure, ld. CIT has no objection on assessee's following mercantile system of accounting in that eventuality even the accrued liabilities are to be allowed. Assessee has demonstrated that per square yard working of JDA expenses was provided to ld. AO during the assessment proceedings which is part of the record. Once the liability is accrued as per JDA circulars and AO allows the claim based on working provided by assessee; it demonstratively means that AO allowed the claim after due application of mind. Ld. CIT has not even disputed that liability is allowable as clearance has been give about liability qua the sale proceeds offered.
It has been lost sight of that assessee follows mercantile method, liability is statutory and working of quantum is provided. With all this available on record we hold that the assessment order can neither be called as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Our views are fortified by the catena of judgments cited above, consequently the 263 order is quashed and assessee's grounds are allowed
-
2017 (10) TMI 1458
Nature of expenditure - compensation paid to land owners/farmers for using their land for extraction of minerals - Contribution by the assessee to State Renewal Fund and Social Welfare Activities u/s 37(1) - Revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in M/S RAJ STATE MINES AND MINERAL LTD [2017 (10) TMI 1457 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] as held that the expenses which gives fruitful result require to be done according to the necessity of relevant time and development with the nature of expenses. It cannot be capital expenses and is to be considered as revenue expenses. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Sale proceeds received by the company from the sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CER) pertaining to Carbon Credit - Revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- We find that the Appellate Tribunal in My Home Power Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2012 (11) TMI 288 - ITAT HYDERABAD] have, after detailed examination, concluded that the receipts from Carbon credit are capital in nature. We are inclined to follow the said decision and the other two decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Sri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015 (4) TMI 132 - ITAT CHENNAI] and Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs.DCIT [2016 (9) TMI 394 - ITAT CHENNAI] where also it has been held that receipt on account of Carbon Credit is capital in nature & neither chargeable to tax under the head Business Income nor liable to tax under the head Capital Gains.
Provision for Mines Closure - Deduction in respect of Mines Closure Expenses - the said expenditure was not even debited in the books of accounts and is also not an ascertained liability - ITAT allowed the deduction - HELD THAT:- It is not reflected in the books of accounts without taking closure of a mining is a statutory liability and the same is for the subsequent year reflected, therefore, in view of the decision rendered by the tribunal BHARAT EARTH MOVERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the opinion that the tribunal has not committed any error.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1457
Nature of expenses - expenses claimed as compensation for rock phosphate - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- The issue is now covered by the decision of this court in the case of CIT Jaipur vs. M/s Rajasthan State Mines & Mi [2016 (12) TMI 1658 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] we are of the opinion that the expenses which gives fruitful result require to be done according to the necessity of relevant time and development with the nature of expenses.
In that view of the matter, it cannot be capital expenses and is to be considered as revenue expenses. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1456
Capital gain computation - Issue of cost of improvement which was claimed by the assessee while computing long term capital gain, being the cost of improvement incurred by the appellant in the property sold - purchase of house - sum paid on account of renovation of old building - whether payment was made by the assessee-company through payees account cheque and this fact has been duly admitted by Sh. Kewal Krishan Gupta ? - HELD THAT:- Assessee has made vague submissions and allegations and in fact primafacie failed to establish its claim by producing any substantive and/or corroborative material as the statement of the assessee creates many doubts about the date of the purchase of the house, actual condition of the house, at that time, and renovation carried out in the house and in all human probabilities it is not acceptable to our conscious mind that while purchasing a house on consideration of ₹ 6,54,000/- why the person will give ₹ 4.95,000/- for renovation to the erstwhile owner. Even otherwise no documentary evidences with regard to the renovation works done previously and later stage of the house was ever filed before the authorities below or before us.
On the aforesaid consideration, we do not have any hesitation to hold that that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue in hand against assessee
Addition on account of repair and renovation of the property - HELD THAT:- We have failed to understand as to why the assessee alongwith his mother had shown to be licensee/tenant of his father, once his father purchased the property on 29th April, 1999. From the complaint, it reflects that assessee’s father had purchased the hotel on 29.04.1999 and therefore sold the same on 04.04.2005 to Sh. Makhtool Singh and other persons and till date the assessee claimed to be the tenant of the said property. This case pertains to the assessment year:2006-07 which means Financial Year: 2005-06 and father of the assessee sold the said property on 04.04.2005, however, it seems that the assessee claiming the expenditure on renovation to be carried out in the F.Y. 2005-06 which at all, does not seems to be true.
It is against human probabilities that the quotation dated 26.06.1999 reflects the amount of ₹ 10,31,906/-, however, the renovation alleged to be carried on later on after many years, which have been claimed by the assessee exactly as of quotation amount which creates many doubts for its authenticity. Further, we have to observe that in the Evidence Act, there is a provision to prove the facts by adducing secondary evidence, if primarily is not available as in the instant case, the assessee has based his case upon the theft taken place at the hotel premises, however, we have failed to understand as to what stopped the assessee to brought on record or to call upon the records of raw material supplier, contractor, labours and labour wages expenses if incurred if any.
The assessee got various opportunities in the assessment proceedings to substantiate its claim, however, undisputedly failed to establish. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issues under consideration by logic and well reasoning and therefore, liable to be upheld.
Charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C as the charges of interest is statutory in nature and hence, does not required to be interfered with. - Assessee appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1455
Taxability - Storage and warehousing services - Reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the appellant's own case ABAN LOYD CHILES OFFSHORE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2012 (7) TMI 287 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] has held that appellant is not liable to pay service tax as the recipient of service of the nature not falling within the purview of Section 65(105)(zza) of the Finance Act, 1994 r/w Section 65(102) of the said Act.
Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1454
Effect of N/N. 1/2013 Custom dated 21.01.2013 - prospective effect or retrospective effect? - import of gold - case of petitioner is that the customs duty at the prevailing rate of 4.12% in terms of N/N. 12/2012 Cus dated 17.03.2012 was already deposited, and the N/N. 1/2013 Customs dated 21.01.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively to the goods already cleared - HELD THAT:- There is no legal and valid ground for interference - The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1453
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - deemed income u/s. 69/69A - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the present case, which appears to be a case of concealment of particulars of income, even as the AO finally holds in the penalty order, it could be that the AO finds the assessee’s accounts as not reliable, so that there is scope for leakage of revenue by way of under reporting of profits. Though only one addition would stand to be made, as that on account of undisclosed profit would stand telescoped against the investment in which it gets crystallized, it would clearly be a case of both concealment, as well as furnishing inaccurate, particulars of income.
No wonder the statute itself in certain circumstances, as specified in Explanation 5 and 5A (to s. 271(1)(c)), deems the assessee to have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, i.e., of both or either of the charges, which are in fact limbs of the same, single charge. As explained, there could be instances where the two converge or overlap.
On the contrary, the assessee, rather than explaining the non disclosure of income per her original return, based her case in the penalty proceedings on the deposit of tax even prior to the issue of reassessment notice and of the survey – that led to the detection of undisclosed income, being not at her premises, both of which aspects have been found by us as irrelevant. As explained by the Hon'ble Courts, it is the entire factual background that falls for consideration, and the rules of the natural justice cannot be imprisoned in any strait-jacket formula.
The due procedure of law has been observed in the present case. Rather, as explained, where no prejudice is caused, even a defect in notice – which is an administrative devise to put the assessee to notice, i.e., of the proposed penalty and, further, provide an opportunity to state its case, shall not invalidate proceedings (also refer s. 292B). The legal argument raised is de hors the facts of the case, and in view of the law as explained, is without merit.
CIT(A) has found the AO to have not found the assessee’s explanation as not bona fide or false. The same is inconsequential as he, enjoying co-terminus powers, found the assessee’s explanation and conduct as bona fide, so that no penalty is leviable, and in his order that by the AO merges. Two, we have found the assessee to have only issued a bald statement, which cannot be regarded as an explanation, much less sustainable, in the eyes of law. There is no question of it having been found bona fide or false by the AO.
In fact, there is nothing to show that the assessee forwarded the penalty notice to her counsel, instructing him (her) to represent her, for her to plead ignorance of the penalty proceedings, which remained un-responded. Further still, the gifts, even where proved genuine, would stand assessable as income where other than from defined relatives, whose identity remains undisclosed. The assessee’s case is thus sans any basis in facts or in law. - Decided in favour of revenue
-
2017 (10) TMI 1452
Title: Supreme Court of India Judgment 2017 (10) TMI 1452
Judges: R. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Representation: Appellant represented by Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Ms. Prerna Kumari, Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Ms. Lhingneivah, Ms. Viddusshi, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
Decision: Delay condoned. Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order allowed. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 10258-10296 of 2011.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1451
Bogus purchases u/s 69C - AO estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases at 12.5% - CIT(A) enhancing the addition of bogus purchases to 100% - HELD THAT:- There is merit in the contentions of A.R. Since the quantity details have been reconciled and since it has also been certified by the tax auditor, in my view, there is no necessity to disallow entire amount of alleged bogus purchases. As noticed that the AO had estimated the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases at 12.50% and our view, it appears to be reasonable. Accordingly set aside the order passed by CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to sustain addition to the extent of 12.50% of the value of purchases. - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1450
Exemption u/s 11 - trust or institution has been granted registration under section 12AA - Applicability of the registration granted to a trust or institution to earlier years - Non-application of registration for the period prior to the year of registration caused genuine hardship to charitable organisations - ITAT applying the Proviso of Section 12A(2), inserted w.e.f. 01.10.2014, with retrospective effect in spite of the facts that the proviso has no indication of being applied for the earlier years retrospectively - HELD THAT:- At the time of registration, the authority is required to look whether it is registered under the state Act or under any other Act. There is no distinction between private trust and public trust. The contention which has been raised by counsel for the appellant regarding the expenses, diversion or control by the private people will come only when the assessment has taken place. For the purpose of trust registered and the income used is for the charitable purpose or not and whether income from public trust if it is going for any private use will negative the very object of the Trust Act which is the main intention of the legislation, is not to be considered at this stage.
As long as the objects were charitable in nature in the earlier years and in the year in which registration u/s 12AA was granted, the existence of trust for charitable purposes in the earlier years cannot be doubted with. Even otherwise, no adverse findings were given by the revenue with regard to the existence of the assessee society for charitable purposes in the assessment years under appeal.
A receipt which is by birth, capital in nature, cannot change its character merely for want of registration of society u/s 12AA of the Act. It is not the case of the revenue that the donations received are meant for general functioning of the charitable objects of the society, in which event, the donations received thereon would take the character of revenue receipts requiring to be credited in the income and expenditure account for utilization towards charitable objects thereon. Hence we hold that in any case, the donations received by the assessee society cannot be brought to tax in the assessment.
We hold that since the only reason for denial of exemption u/s 11 was absence of registration u/s 12AA (which was granted to assessee society on 29.10.2010 with effect from 1.4.2010) for the relevant assessment years and on no other ground, the benefit of change in law as above by Finance Act 2014 should be available and for all the years, the benefit of exemption should be available on the date of registration as all the assessments were pending as shown above. In this connection, it requires mention specifically that all the receipts of the donation were proved on enquiry to have been received from the claimed donors and utilized for the specific purpose (construction of old age home) for which they were received.
In conclusion, we hold that the insertion of the proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act has to be construed as retrospective in operation - This issue stands answered in favour of the assessee by Shree Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust [2016 (4) TMI 578 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] , wherein, it was held that appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and assessment proceedings pending before an appellate authority should be deemed to be "assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer" within the meaning of Section 12A. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
