9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that running Vocational Training Centre of Computer and Tailoring are business activity and not a charitable activity as claimed by the assessee . 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT( A) was right in ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgements in the case of Escorts Ltd vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law, in addition to normal deduction. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the donation to the tune of 1.41 crores by ignoring the fact that the assessee has not submitted 80G certificate issued b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecified as well as non specified objects. It is not true that the assessee is doing any business in vocational training of computer and tailoring. Every year there is deficit in the Income & Expenditure account of the assessee . The assessee has been granted status of charitable Institution in earlier years. There is no reason that the assessee should be regarded as a business entity in this year. It is also noted that the assessee has spent the corpus donation for 35AC projects, but apart from this, the assessee has also spent non specified funds for specified projects which is not in violation of objects of the trust. Therefore, the assessee is entitle to exemption u/s 11 and 11(1 )( d). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not prohibited by the provisions of the Act. In view of that matter, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld.CIT( A) on this count and accordingly Ground No. 1 is dismissed. 4. Apropos Ground No. 2, the relevant facts are that of the assessee claimed depreciation on capital assets. In the assessment framed, the AO disallowed the same as the same had been already allowed as application of income u/s 11 of the Act and hence not entitled for double deduction in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Escorts Ltd. Vs Union of India (199 ITR 43) and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1992 65 Taxman 420). However, on appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by relying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the previous year the assessee had paid donation of Rs.1,41,00,000/- to another charitable trust and thus claimed the same as expenditure during the year under consideration. In the assessment framed, the AO disallowed the claim and added back to the total income as no 80G certificate was submitted by the assessee . 5.1 On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) by relying on the CBDT circular No.1132 dated 05.01.1978 and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust No.2 (1988) (172 ITR 698) , directed the AO to delete the impugned addition. Aggrieved by the decision, Revenue has raised this ground in the appeal before us. 5.2 We have heard the rival submissions on this ground and perused the material on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
