TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich includes medical relief. Insofar as section 10(23C) is concerned, that pertains to any income received by any person on behalf of hospital or other institution for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness or for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation, existing solely for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit. In relation to that, we find that the Commissioner passed an order denying the exemption and that order of the Commissioner has been challenged by the assessee by filing a Writ Petition in this Court and that is pending. In the present case, neither the Commissioner nor the Tribunal has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c purpose, that we do not think that despite the directions of the Charity Commissioner, the revenue can insist that the amounts charged or sur-charges levied should not be treated as income from the activities of the trust. The authorities under the Income Tax Act are suppose to scrutinise the papers and related documents of the trust or the assessee so as to bring the income to tax and in accordance with the I.T. Act. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 1625 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2015 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And A. K. Menon,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr A R Malhotra, Mr N A Kazi Ms Padma Divakar For the Respondents : Mr Nitesh Joshi Mr Rajesh Poojary ORDER P. C. 1. This appeal by the revenue challenges the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the I.T. Act. However, that exemption was denied. 4. In the present case, when the assesee filed the return of income for assessment year 2005-06 it declared total income at Nil. The assessing officer found that the assesee levied surcharge of 20% on the bills given to the indoor patients and also recovers 25% of the fees paid to the Honorary doctors. The assessing officer treated these amounts as corpus donation by the assessee. He, therefore, denied exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act. 5. Aggrieved by such an order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the said Commissioner allowed the appeal by his order dated 30th September, 2008. While allowing the appeal, the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es medical relief. 8. Insofar as section 10(23C) is concerned, that pertains to any income received by any person on behalf of hospital or other institution for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness or for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation, existing solely for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit. In relation to that, we find that the Commissioner passed an order denying the exemption and that order of the Commissioner has been challenged by the assessee by filing a Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.323 of 2010 and that is pending. 9. In the present case, neither the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent years. It is in these circumstances that we are of the view that the Tribunal's order does not raise any substantial question of law. In these circumstances the conclusion reached in paragraph 5 and 5.1 cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record. 11. The argument of Mr.Malhotra that the levy of surcharge on patients and doctors ought not to have been treated as income earned from the activities of the trust but a corpus donation, need not detain us. Mr.Malhotra himself had pointed to us that certain directions were issued to the Assessee by the Charity Commissioner of the State in exercise of his powers under section 34 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. They have been referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
