TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee or donated to it - the construction of the complex would fall within the scope of the objects enumerated in the memorandum of association – Decided against Revenue. Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting exemption u/s 11 of the Act, holding that an amount which had been accepted by the respondent-assessee as additional income, never reached the trust – Held that:- There is no material on record to show that this amount and the misappropriated amount is one and the same - That, perhaps, appears to be the reason why the CIT (A) observed that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act to the extent of 25% of the assessee’s income - the respondent-assessee would be entitled for deduction to the extent of 25% on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11(1) (a) of the Act in respect of the income derived from sale of residential and commercial units? ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in granting exemption under Section 11 of the Act, holding that an amount of Rs.1,61,23,950/-, which had been accepted by the respondent-assessee as additional income, never reached the trust ? 4. The respondent-assessee is a charitable trust. The respondent, as they are permitted under their Memorandum of Association, constructed a commercialcum- residential complex on a part of its land called Shalom Apartments cum Commercial Complex (for short the said complex ). At the relevant time, one Marcel Saldanha was the Manager of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of a notice under Section 143(2). The Assessing Officer after considering the entire materials placed before him, in particular, the Memorandum of Association, the show cause notice, and the note of the assessee on revised final accounts, ultimately held that Rs.55,84,075/- was the added income from the business for the assessment year 1997-98; Rs.57,80,925/- for the assessment year 1998- 99; Rs.25,77,000/- for the assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs.21,81,950/- for the assessment year 2000-2001. 4.2. The CIT (A) partly allowed the appeals. It would be relevant to reproduce the following observations from the order of the CIT (A), made for the assessment year 1997-98: Thereafter, the appellant had filed the revised retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to the extent of 25% of the assessee s income. This position of law, in the backdrop of the facts mentioned above, has not been disputed by learned counsel for the assessee before this Court and in all fairness he has agreed for non-inclusion of 25% of the amount of Rs.1,61,23,950/- as contemplated by subsection (1) (a) of Section 11 of the Act. In other words, he submitted that the respondent-assessee would be entitled for deduction to the extent of 25% on the amount of Rs.1,61,23,950/- only, i.e., the amounts added, to the income declared by them in their returns. The amounts added to the income in all the four assessment years are Rs.55,84,075/-, 57,80,925/-, 25,77,000/- and 21,81,950/- respectively. 5. It is in this backdrop, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
