Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 221 to 240 of 1235 Records

• 2012 (8) TMI 1020
  
  Issues Involved: Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2007-2008 and disallowance of depreciation and insurance premium on motor car, and deduction u/s 80G for assessment year 2008-2009.
  
  Issue 1: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2007-2008
  
  The Tribunal considered the appeal against the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court had admitted a substantial question of law against the quantum order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that when a substantial question of law is admitted by the High Court, it indicates the bona fides of the assessee's case. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that in such cases, no penalty can be sustained. Consequently, the penalty was ordered to be deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
  
  Issue 2: Disallowance of depreciation and insurance premium on motor car for assessment year 2008-2009
  
  The appeal raised concerns about the disallowance of depreciation on a motor car and insurance premium. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation and insurance premium claimed by the assessee, stating that the car was used for personal purposes. However, the assessee contended that the car was used for the partnership firm's business purposes. The Tribunal observed that if the car was indeed used for business purposes, the depreciation could only be allowed in the hands of the firm, not the individual partners. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation and insurance premium in the hands of the assessee-partner was upheld.
  
  Issue 3: Deduction u/s 80G for assessment year 2008-2009
  
  The appeal also challenged the disallowance of deduction u/s 80G for donations made by the assessee. The assessee claimed a deduction of &8377;2,50,000 for donations of &8377;5,00,000, but only &8377;1,00,000 was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal directed the matter to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the donation receipts. The Tribunal held that justice would be served by allowing the A.O. to verify the receipts and grant the deduction u/s 80G if found in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
  

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1019
  

  Disallowing the benefit available to assessee u/s 10B - Held that:- Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the benefit available to the assessee under Section 10-B of the Income Tax Act; and the view as taken by the Tribunal does not stand in conformity with the law declared in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s Arihant Tiles & Marbles P. Ltd. (2009 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT )

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1018
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment involves the issue of whether the Short Term Capital Gain of a Chartered Accountant individual should be treated as "Business Income" or not for the assessment year 2008-2009.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  
  1. Revenue's Appeal:
  The Revenue contended that the Short Term Capital Gain of the assessee should be treated as business income due to a high turnover of shares and short holding periods. However, the CIT (A) held that the income from Short Term Capital Gain should not be disturbed and cannot be categorized as business income.
  
  2. Arguments by Revenue and Assessee:
  The Revenue highlighted the high turnover of shares, short holding periods, and speculative transactions to support their claim. On the other hand, the Assessee argued that most shares were held as investments, not for trading, and any speculative transactions were due to errors by the stockbroker.
  
  3. Judgment Analysis:
  The Tribunal found that the frequency of transactions was not high relative to the volume, and the holding period for most shares was substantial. The CIT (A) had already determined that the speculative transactions were minimal and not indicative of organized trading activity. The Tribunal also noted that borrowed funds were non-interest bearing and sourced from the assessee's HUF, supporting the investment nature of the transactions.
  
  4. Assessee's Intentions:
  The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's motive was to hold shares for appreciation, not for immediate profit realization. The unrealized gains on shares held at the year-end exceeded the capital gains offered, indicating an investment intent. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to treat the income as capital gains.
  
  5. Cross Objections by Assessee:
  The assessee raised objections regarding the application of section 45(2) for computing capital gains and the treatment of business losses on share valuations. However, given the Tribunal's decision on the Revenue's appeal, the Cross Objections were deemed infructuous and dismissed.
  
  6. Final Decision:
  Both the Revenue's appeal and the Assessee's Cross Objections were dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the CIT (A)'s order regarding the treatment of Short Term Capital Gain as capital gains for the assessment year 2008-2009.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1017
  

  Deduction of depreciation u/s.32 available to a Charitable Trust - double deduction - deduction of depreciation u/s.32 which falls under chapter 'Profit and gains from business and profession' of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would be available to a Charitable Trust - Decided against revenue

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1016
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Restriction of deduction u/s 80IA for Captive Power Generating Unit (CPGU).
  2. Determination of market value for electricity supplied by CPGU to the Chemical Division.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Restriction of Deduction u/s 80IA for Captive Power Generating Unit (CPGU)

  The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order which restricted the deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Captive Power Generating Unit (CPGU). The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 35,18,06,526, but the AO allowed only Rs. 5,04,78,555, disallowing Rs. 30,13,28,171. The AO based the disallowance on the market value of electricity, using the rate at which surplus power was sold to the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) instead of the rate at which the Chemical Division purchased electricity from UPSEB.

  Issue 2: Determination of Market Value for Electricity Supplied by CPGU to the Chemical Division

  The AO determined the market value of electricity supplied by the CPGU to the Chemical Division by adopting the sale value at which surplus power was supplied to UPSEB. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, stating that the rule of consistency does not apply if the claim is found incorrect in subsequent years. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee showed inflated turnover and net profit to claim a higher deduction. The Tribunal found that the price at which State Electricity Boards sell electricity to industrial consumers represents the market value. The AO's figures from UPPCL did not represent the open market value, as they were based on statutory parameters for compulsory sale of surplus power.

  Conclusion:

  The Tribunal concluded that the market value for the purpose of section 80IA(8) should be the price at which electricity is sold to industrial consumers by the State Electricity Board, excluding duties, cess, taxes, etc. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in principle but directed the AO to recompute the deduction u/s 80IA, excluding electricity duty, cess, taxes, etc.

  Order:

  The appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1015
  

  Treating the Business Centre(I.T Park) Income as Income From House Property instead of Business Income - disallowing the claim of all expenses - disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) - adding on ad–hoc basis the interest earned on the deposit taken from the IT company client who was occupying the premises of the appellant as Income From House Property

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1014
  

  Allowing bad debts written off - Held that:- Bad debt written off as irrecoverable is allowable as an expenditure u/s 36(1)(vii) provided the loan was advanced for the purpose of business and in normal course of business. As seen from the orders passed by the revenue authorities while the AO has disallowed the bad debt written off as a capital loss by observing that advancing loans to sister concerns is not the normal business activity of the assessee. The CIT (A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by simply following the order passed by the CIT (A) for the assessment year 2004-05. Neither the CIT (A) nor the AO has dealt with the basic facts as to what is the actual purpose of advancing the loan to the subsidiary and whether it is for the purpose of business of the assessee. It has also to be ascertained whether the writing off was approved by the Board of Directors.

  Interest levied u/s 115P - Held that:- We fully agree with the CIT (A) that declaration of dividend is not automatic upon finalisation of accounts and presence of profits and reserves. The declaration of dividend is within the domain of Board of directors and the management and the date of declaration of dividend is when it is actually declared by the Board. From the materials on record it is very much clear that the declaration of dividend was made on 24-9-2003 and the tax on dividend was paid on 3-10-2003 which is within the time limit prescribed u/s 115-O(3). There being no failure on the part of the assessee in complying to the provision of section 115-O(3) levy of interest u/s 115P was not justified. We therefore uphold the order of CIT (A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue.

  Disallowance of bad debts written off paid to FCI - Held that:- CIT (A) was correct in holding that it is in the nature of capital loss hence cannot be allowed as an expenditure u/s 36(1)(vii). However the ld. AR has submitted before us that out of ₹ 3 crores loan given to FCI of an amount of ₹ 150 lakhs has been recovered from FCI and included income and tax has also been paid thereon. It appears from the order of the CIT (A) that though this fact was also placed before him it has not at all been considered. We therefore direct the AO to verify whether the amount of ₹ 1.5 crores recovered from FCI has been offered as income by the assessee. If the aforesaid amount has been shown in the income and tax has been paid then disallowance has to be restricted to ₹ 1.5 crores. The AO shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before finalising the proceedings.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1013
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deletion of additions based on seized documents.
  2. Invocation of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the I.T. Act.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Deletion of Additions Based on Seized Documents
  
  Case of Shri Alkesh M. Patel (IT(ss)A No.144/Ahd/2010):
  - The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 15,300 and Rs. 18,23,883 as undisclosed income based on seized documents.
  - The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that a diary found during a search u/s 132(1) belonged to the assessee, indicating undisclosed salary and bonus.
  - The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 15,300, noting the remuneration disclosed was already inclusive of the amount in question.
  - Regarding Rs. 18,23,883, the AO claimed it was unaccounted remuneration, but the CIT(A) found it was for business expenses, not personal income.
  - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming no separate addition was warranted as the amounts were already disclosed or meant for business expenses.
  
  Case of Shri Gaurang P. Patel (IT(ss)A No.145/Ahd/2010):
  - The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 90,000 and Rs. 26,63,305 as undisclosed income.
  - The Tribunal found the facts identical to Shri Alkesh M. Patel's case and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings.
  
  Case of Shri Praful G. Patel (IT(ss)A No.146/Ahd/2010):
  - The Revenue disputed the deletion of Rs. 84,000 and Rs. 13,68,000 as undisclosed income.
  - The Tribunal, noting identical facts to the previous cases, dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
  
  Issue 2: Invocation of Jurisdiction u/s 153C of the I.T. Act
  
  Cross Objection by Shri Alkesh M. Patel (Cross Objection No.90/Ahd/2010):
  - The assessee argued that the provisions of section 153C were wrongly invoked as no documents belonging to him were found.
  - The Tribunal noted that a diary and pen-drive containing the assessee's information were found, justifying the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C.
  - The Tribunal dismissed the cross-objection, confirming the AO's jurisdiction.
  
  Cross Objection by Shri Gaurang P. Patel (Cross Objection No.91/Ahd/2010):
  - The Tribunal dismissed the cross-objection, aligning with the decision in Shri Alkesh M. Patel's case.
  
  Cross Objection by Shri Praful G. Patel (Cross Objection No.105/Ahd/2010):
  - The Tribunal dismissed the cross-objection, consistent with the previous decisions.
  
  Conclusion:
  - All appeals by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessees were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, confirming no separate additions were warranted and the jurisdiction u/s 153C was correctly invoked.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1012
  

  Addition made on account of sticky advances - interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by the assessee bank for last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought to P & L A/c of the assessee could not be included in the income of the assessee - Held that:- Claim allowed - Decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1011
  

  Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA - Held that:- In the case of GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT,[2012 (4) TMI 149 - ITAT HYDERABAD] wherein the Tribunal held that deduction u/s. 80IA is available to developers who undertake entrepreneurial investment risk and not for the contractors, who undertake only business risk. Without any doubt, the assessee clearly demonstrated that the plant and machinery, technical know-how, expertise and financial resources.

  If the contracts involve design, development, operation & maintenance, financial involvement and defect correction and liability period, then such contracts cannot be called as simple works contract, to deny the deduction under section 80IA. The contracts which contain above features to be segregated have to be granted deduction under section 80IA and the other agreements which are pure works contracts hit by the Explanation to section 80IA(13) are not entitled for deduction under section 80IA. The profit from the contracts which involve design, development, operating & maintenance, financial involvement and defect correction and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1010
  

  Allowability of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i) - Held that:- In the case of GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT (2012 (4) TMI 149 - ITAT HYDERABAD) wherein held that deduction u/s. 80IA is available to developers who undertake entrepreneurial investment risk and not for the contractors, who undertake only business risk. Without any doubt, the assessee clearly demonstrated that the plant and machinery, technical know-how, expertise and financial resources. Therefore, if the contracts involve design, development, operation & maintenance, financial involvement and defect correction and liability period, then such contracts cannot be called as simple works contract, to deny the deduction under section 80IA.

  The contracts which contain above features to be segregated have to be granted deduction under section 80IA and the other agreements which are pure works contracts hit by the Explanation to section 80IA(13) are not entitled for deduction under section 80IA. The profit from the contracts which involve design, development, operating & maintenance, financial involvement and defect correction and liability period is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on pro rata basis of turnover. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the records, accordingly, and grant deduction on eligible turnover.

  Disallowance of claim of bad debt by enhancement of assessment by the CIT(A)- Held that:- As noticed by the CIT(A), there was a dispute regarding this issue and the dispute is pending before the Madras High Court. Further, it is not possible to claim the debt as bad debt in this assessment year 2002-03 on the basis of Tribunal award dated 10.1.2000 which is relevant to the assessment year 2000-01. Being so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is confirmed on this issue.

  Penalty 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The issue relating to allowability of deduction u/s. 80IA we have remitted back the issue relating to allowability of deduction u/s. 80IA to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Hence, at this stage levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is premature. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that levy of penalty at this stage is not justified.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1009
  

  Short tds deduction - whether it is in the nature of technical services or contract payment - Tds u/s 194J or 194C - addition under section 40(a)(ia) - assessee’s contention that the amounts paid are not in the nature of technical fees but only reimbursement of expenditure - Held that:- We are of the opinion that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked for short deduction of tax. Therefore, the orders of AO and the CIT (A) on this issue are set aside and AO is directed to allow the amount as claimed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1008
  

  Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- The AO did not even attempt to examine as to whether or not the share application money can be treated as “loan” or “advance” within the meaning of provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. There is nothing on record to show that these transact ions were at tached with certain condit ions or st ipulat ion as to period of repayment, rate of interest, manner of repayment , etc. so as to treat the said transactions as loans or advances. Moreover, the Revenue have not placed before us any material, suggest ing that the transact ions were actually in the nature of loans or advances

  In CIT vs. I.P. India Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in their decision [ 2011 (11) TMI 252 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] concluded that the receipt of share application monies for allotment of shares in the assessee-company could not be treated as receipt of loan or deposit. In the light of view taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid decisions, especially when the ld. CIT(A) found as a fact that the amount of ₹ 1 crore was indeed received by the assessee from KMPTL as share application money, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).

  As regards advance of ₹ 3,96,888/- against order, the AO did not record any reasons to tax the amount by way of deemed dividend. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that commercial advance was outside the purview of the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Raj Kumar (2009 (5) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT) following the view in CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia(1988 (12) TMI 89 - BOMBAY High Court) held that the trade advance which is in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transaction does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1007
  

  Assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A - additions made u/s. 68 - Held that:- We find that the AO is carried away in his presumptions and surmises in respect of penny stock. disregarding the direct evidences filed by the assessee in the form of Contract Notes, brokers’ confirmation and PA No. Without making any enquiry on his part, the AO simply formed a belief that since some irregular practices have happened in the stock market, the windfall gain made by the assessee is a result of such malpractices.

  We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has also been carried away with such news items without realizing that his powers are co-terminus to that of the AO and if the AO has failed to make certain enquiries, the Ld. CIT(A) could have done so on his own. The Revenue cannot convert good evidences into bad evidences on surmises and conjectures just because certain brokers formed a cartel and manipulated prices of certain stocks and if the assessee is one of the beneficiaries, then solely on the basis of this, it cannot be said that the assessee has entered into some sham transaction. We have no hesitation to say that the findings of the lower authorities are totally based on presumptions and surmises, without any enquiry.

  No hesitation to hold that the transaction has resulted into Long Term Capital gains as shown by the assessee. We therefore direct the AO to accept the gains as Long Term Capital Gains. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1006
  

  Deduction u/s.80P(2) - Held that:- AO observed that this deduction cannot be claimed without filing a revised return. Neither in the original return nor in the revised return the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80P(2). Therefore, he disallowed the deduction u/s.80P(2). Without prejudice to this, AO also took the view that the principal object of the assessee bank is to finance co-operative societies in Jamnagar district affiliated to bank and generally to carry on banking business. One of the objects (clause vii) is to advance loans to agriculturist admitted as ordinary or nominal member, the principal object therefore cannot be said to provide for long term credit to agriculturist and rural development. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2).

  Deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) - Held that:- It can be made from profit of earlier years as ultimately the profit is transferred to reserve account. Admittedly, the assessee has made provision in the books of account of this year which has been duly audited by the authorized auditor. As per provision contained in sec.36(1)(vii) read with Rule-6ABA, the provisions for bad and doubtful debt are allowable to the extent mentioned in this section. Before the AO, the assessee has not furnished the working. Same was furnished before the ld. CIT(A). We therefore, set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct him to verify the working submitted before the ld. CIT(A) and allow the deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) in respect of provisions for bad and doubtful debts whether from the current year profit or from the earlier year’s profit after verifying the calculation and allow the same.

  Disallowed the overdue interest reserve - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that AO has not considered the fact that overdue interest amounting to ₹ 1,15,00,000/- which is credited into profit and loss account was debited as per RBI guidelines and there is no ultimate credit in P/L. A/c. in this respect. Thus, there is no income accrued and no addition on this account can be made.

  Distribution of gift by assessee-Co-operative Society to its member at AGM is allowable as business expenditure

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1005
  

  CENVAT credit - common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt goods - Held that: - paragraph 3.7 in Chapter 5 of the CBEC's Central Excise Manuel (sic) states that CENVAT credit is also admissible in respect of amounts of inputs contained in any of the waste, residue or by-product. It further states that the basic idea is that CENVAT credit is admissible so long as the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1004
  

  Registration granted u/s. 12AA cancelled - capitation fee was collected in cash - Held that:- The assessee cannot be considered as a trust engaged in charitable activities. The objects of the trust have been violated in a wholesome manner and the basis on which registration is granted no longer survives or holds good, would call immediate interference by the registration granting authority. In these circumstances, the registration authority cancels the registration. The argument placed before us by learned AR is superficial which cannot be considered. The CIT (Central), Hyderabad considering the entire facts of the case found that there is violation of the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and the case cannot be called as a trust and it is carrying on the activities in a commercial manner for which registration u/s. 12A cannot be continued. In our opinion, the CIT (Central), Hyderabad has power to cancel the registration granted u/s. 12AA of the Act and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the order of the CIT (Central), Hyderabad. - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1003
  
  Issues involved: Disallowance of interest payment, disallowance of telephone and motor car expenses, depreciation.
  
  Disallowance of Interest Payment:
  The assessee, a trading firm, made advances without charging interest, leading to disallowance of interest payment by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance based on lack of business expediency, citing the S. A. Builders case. The A.R. argued against disallowance on the opening balance, referencing past deductions. The Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court decision, directed the A.O. to calculate disallowance only on the loan amount for the year at 6%, allowing the appeal.
  
  Disallowance of Telephone and Motor Car Expenses:
  The A.O. disallowed 1/4th of telephone and motor car expenses as personal in nature. The CIT (A) reduced the disallowance to 1/5th after considering the written submission by the assessee. The A.R. contended that the disallowance was adhoc and lacked specific instances of personal expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, rejecting the appeal on this ground.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the A.O. to calculate the disallowance of interest payment only on the loan amount for the year and upholding the CIT (A)'s decision on the disallowance of telephone and motor car expenses.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1002
  
  Issues involved: Rejection of registration u/s 12A of the Act by DIT (E) Hyderabad based on the nature of activities of the trust and application of proviso to sec. 2(15).
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad involved the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the DIT (E) rejecting the registration u/s 12A of the Act. The DIT (E) concluded that the trust's activities were not charitable as they aimed at improving knowledge and competence of members rather than benefiting the public at large. Additionally, the DIT (E) found the trust's activities to be in the commercial line due to charging a fee, invoking the proviso to sec. 2(15).
  
  The assessee contended that the DIT (E) misconceived the facts and misapplied the proviso to sec. 2(15). The assessee argued that the trust's objective was to improve technical knowledge, not for commercial purposes. It was further argued that the DIT (E) did not properly examine the documents submitted, leading to the rejection of the registration u/s 12A. The assessee requested a re-examination by the DIT (E) considering all the documents.
  
  The Appellate Tribunal noted that the trust was registered under the Societies Registration Act, maintained regular audited accounts, and claimed its activities were for charitable purposes. The Tribunal found that the DIT (E) did not conduct a proper inquiry to satisfy himself about the trust's objectives and genuineness. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the DIT (E)'s order and directed a reexamination of the issue, considering all documents and making necessary inquiries. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard during the reexamination.
  
  As a result, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced on 24-8-2012.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1001
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of undertaking for pre-deposit amount, validity of bank guarantee, jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal.
  
  Interpretation of undertaking for pre-deposit amount: The petitioner contended that there was no undertaking to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1 Crore in addition to the bank guarantee of Rs. 1.80 Crores, while the respondents argued that the petitioner had indeed given such an undertaking within a specified timeframe.
  
  Validity of bank guarantee: The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1 Crore, in addition to the existing bank guarantee of Rs. 1.80 Crores, to be submitted within two weeks. The total bank guarantee required was set at Rs. 2.8 Crores, to be maintained until the appeal's disposal by the Appellate Tribunal.
  
  Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal: The Court emphasized that the Appellate Tribunal should address the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, as the order issued by the second respondent was under challenge in the ongoing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal was instructed to hear and decide the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law within 12 weeks from the date of the Court's order.
  
  Conclusion: The writ petition was granted in favor of the petitioner, with the directive for the additional bank guarantee and the Appellate Tribunal to proceed with the appeal's hearing and disposal. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.

  ---

1 ....8910111213141516........ 62