Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2009 (8) TMI 315

..... l for philanthropic purposes. - 1383 of 2009 - 24-8-2009 - FERDINO I. REBELLO and D. G. KARNIK JJ. Mr. T. D. Mistry with Mr. R. Murlidhar, instructed by Mahimtura and Co., for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Patki for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. D. G. KARNIK J.- By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated March 31, 2009 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai (respondent No. 1) rejecting the petitioner s request for grant of approval under section 10(23C) (via) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) for the assessment year 2002 to the assessment year 2008-09 and onwards. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1913 who .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ner made applications to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment year 2002-03 to 2004-05 and the assessment year 2005-06 to 2007-08 respectively seeking renewal of the approval under section 10(23C) (via) of the Income-tax Act. On March 31, 2008, the petitioner filed an application to the Chief Commissioner for renewal of the approval under section 10(23C)(via) of the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. By an order dated March 31, 2009, the respondent No. 1 rejected all the aforesaid applications wider section 10(23C)(via) for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2010-11. That order is impugned in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was previously granted approval by the Central Boa .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... d that the assets of the petitioner had increased during this period and, therefore, he deduced that the petitioner had used the excess of receipts over expenses for creating the assets and thereby strengthening its capacity to earn more. Therefore, he inferred that the petitioner did not exist solely for philanthropic purpose but there existed some profit motive. Secondly, respondent No.1 examined and compared the money spent by the petitioner for concessional treatment to the staff members of the hospital run by the petitioner. He held that concessional treatment provided to the staff members could not be regarded as philanthropic purpose. Thirdly, respondent No.1 took exception to the write off the amount of Rs.76,80,723. The petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... arned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the statement given in ground No. A(viii) at page 23 of the petition, which discloses that though there was some surplus for a few years cumulatively for the years 1990-91 to 2008-09 there was a cumulative loss (expenditure exceeding the income) of Rs.22.30 lakhs. These averments are not denied by the respondent. Thus, cumulatively there was no surplus as observed by respondent No. 1. In the notice of hearing dated March 12, 2009 also there was no mention that there was surplus for a certain number of years and no explanation was sought from the petitioner on that count though explanation was sought regarding write off of Rs.76,80,723 as also regarding the fees received for medical e .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... The petitioner and its directors/trustees could have been prosecuted and sued for non-payment the provident fund contributions which was their statutory duty. In our this was wholly irrelevant for considering whether the petitioner was not established solely for philanthropic purpose. 8. As regards the last ground regarding the fees received for medical examination of applicants for USA visa, undoubtedly there has been a surplus for seven out of nine years while there was a loss in the remaining two years. But it may be difficult to appropriate every receipt for every activity and medical treatment provided by the petitioner. There may be some surplus in some areas and deficit in other areas. Cross subsidization is not unknown. Even in stat .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||