TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket Committees relating to Assessment Year 2007-08. The appeals of different Market Committees on the same issues are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The common grounds of appeal reads as under:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was justified in allowing payment of 30% of Market fees amounting to ₹ 59,21,662/- (Market Committee, Rania), ₹ 9,56,027/-(Market Committee, Ding) and ₹ 65,52,109/- (Market Committee, Ellenabad) earned by it paid to Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board as application of income for charitable purposes. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was justified in allowing d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived from License fee, market and fines etc to defray expenses of the establishment of the Board and such other expense incurred in the interest of the committee. Section 28 of the said Act lays down the manner of expending of funds of market committee. The contribution to the Board by the market committee u/s 27 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, was a statutory requirement and every market committee has to contribute certain percentage of its income to the Agricultural Marketing Board. The issue raised before us is in respect of the allowability of the 30% contribution made by the Market Committees to the Board being application of income while computing the income u/s 11(1) of the Income Tax Act. 5. We find that sim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the aforesaid decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Haryana Dal General Mills Vs. State (Supra), we therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 30,85,291/- out of contribution made by the assessee committee to the Marketing Board. Thus, this ground is also rejected. 6. It was further held as under:- 7. The assessee market committees as well as HSAMB are duly registered u/s 12AA of the Act. The claim of the assessee are allowable on the ground that they are required to pay 30% of the income to the Board which is spent for specified development projects and other purposes and not for the benefit of the assessee market committee, therefore, respectfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. We find that similar issue arose before the Tribunal in ITA No. 1055/Chd/2009 relating to Assessment Year 2006-07 whereby vide order dated 30.11.2009, it was held as under:- 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The assessee before us is a local authority which is claiming its income to be exempt u/s 11 of the I.T. Act. While computing the income for the year as per income and expenditure account, the assessee had debited depreciation of ₹ 8,92,957/- on the fixed assets. Admittedly the entire cost of the assets was claimed and allowed as application of income towards charitable purpose in the year of acquisition of the said assets. The assets were either acquired in the earlier years or during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income u/s 11 of the Act. However, we find that factual aspects of the issue of addition to the fixed assets and the depreciation allowable on the same is not clear from the perusal of records. We, therefore, restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the additions made to the fixed assets from year to year and the rate of depreciation to be allowed on the same and consequently work out the depreciation allowable to the assessee during the year under appeal. The Assessing Officer shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, ground No.3 raised by the assessee in both the appeals is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Respectfully following the ratio laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n passed by the trustees alongwith Form No.10. The Assessing Officer requisitioned the assessee to explain why income accumulated at ₹ 1.98 Crores be not disallowed u/s 11(2) of the Act as the purposes mentioned in form No. 10 were not specific and not supported by the resolution deed passed by the trust. The assessee failed to file copy of the said resolution before the Assessing Officer and claim of the assessee was thus rejected and benefit of accumulation of ₹ 1.98 Crores was not allowed to the assessee. Before the CIT(A), the learned AR for the assessee produced the copy of resolution passed by the trust of the assessee and claim was allowed u/s 11(2) of the Act. 13. We find that the basis for disallowing the claim u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
