TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the approval given u/s. 10(23C) (via)? - Income Tax Appeal No. 2443 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. A. R. Malhotra For the Respondent : Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Poojary i/b. Mulla Mulla, C. B. C. ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is passed in respect of the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) Respondent-Assessee is a Charitable Trust, registered with the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra. The Respondent-Assessee had been granted Registration as a Trust by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) w.e.f. 1st April, 2000. During the course of Assessment,for the subject Assessment Year, the Assessing Officer rejected the Respondent Assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. This on the ground that there had been an amendment to the trust deed which renders the Registration of the Trust under Section 12A of the Act invalid; (b) On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on examination of the original trust deed as well as the amended trust deed found that the object clauses in the origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained. 4. Re Question (c): (a) The Assessing Officer during the course of Assessment Proceedings found that the Respondent-Assesse charges received from patients were exorbitant. Consequently he came to the conclusion that the Respondent-Assessee was engaged in the business of running hospital and not in-chartiy. Thus, holding that the Respondent-Assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Exemption either under Section 10(23C) (vi) or Section 11 of the Act. This was without considering whether the excess on the above amount received in offering medical services to its patients capable on paying its charges was utilized for charity; (b) In appeal, the CIT(A) found that the Respondent-Assessee had applied more than 85% of its income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v/s. G. D. Birla Medical Research and Educational Foundation (ITXA 2294 and 2295 of 2013) rendered on 1st February, 2016. In the above case, this Court after considering the decision of the Apex Court in Escorts Ltd., v/s. Union of India 199 ITR 43 has held that there is no question of Respondent-Assessee taking double deduction on account of depreciation; and (b) In view of the above, question (d) as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 6. Appeal admitted on substantial question of law as framed at question (b). 7. Registry is directed to communicate copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep papers and procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
