TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal. Held that- going by the statement recorded from parents, the Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that these amount were in fact paid only by way of capitation fee and not towards corpus account of the assessee trust. The assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 10(22). - 1307 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 23-10-2007 - RAVIRAJA PANDIAN K., CHITRA VENKATARAMAN MRS. JJ JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman J .-The tax case filed at the instance of the assessee relating to the assessment year 1995-96 seeks admission on the following questions of law: "1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant trust existed only for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). By an order dated October 29, 2001, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however granted the relief, following the earlier orders passed in the same assessee's case. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated October 21, 2005, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue holding that the assessee is not entitled to have the benefit of exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that the basis of the orders passed in the earlier years and relied on by the assessee, and the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were distinguishab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under the corpus donation account. The Assessing authority rightly held that it is immaterial how the recipient, namely the assessee herein, accounted for the same and issued receipts towards charitable purpose at the time of receipt of the income. Admittedly, it was towards capitation fee. In such circumstances, the assessing authority rightly rejected the contention of the assessee that the contribution by the parents towards capitation fee could not be characterised as voluntary payment to be credited under the head "Corpus donation". It is also seen that the assessing authority referred to the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Bombay in a similar circumstance, wherein it was held that the donation given for mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suggested in the counter that any surplus arising from the operations of the institution is distributed by way of profit to any individuals. It must be noted that the nature of quality of the receipt has to be adjudged as at the time of receipt. The subsequent act of the assessee to enter the same under some head on receipt cannot alter the quality of the receipt. 8. Having regard to the fact that the amount that had been received was under capitation fee, it could not be characterised as donation. Since it does not involve any interpretation as regards section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we do not find any justification to admit this case. In such circumstances, the tax case appeal is rejected at the admission stage itself and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
