Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

DCIT (Exemption) Circle-2 (1) , New Delhi Versus St. Stephen’s Hospital

2017 (11) TMI 516 - ITAT DELHI

Eligibility to exemption u/s 11 - Held that:- It is submitted that in earlier Assessment Years the Exemption was granted by the Department which was taken into cognizance by the CIT(A) in his order. There is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). As per the decision in assessee’s own case passed by the ITAT and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. There was no change in the object and purpose of the assessee. - There is no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/05/2015 passed by CIT (A)- 40 (E), New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption u/s 11 disregarding the facts of the case. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act by ignoring the fact that as the assessee being assessee as AO .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

before him. 3. The assessee is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 24/03/1969 and is also registered u/s 12AA(1) dated 18/02/1974. The society is running a hospital in the name of St. Stephen's Hospital in Tis Hazari, old Delhi. The hospital was established on 31/10/1885 and opened by the then Lady Dafferin. The establishment of the present hospital was started by a young English lady Ms. Priscilla Winter aged 22 years in the year 1864 through a smal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessee is mostly from the collection of the fees from the patients as the assessee generally does not receive any donation for its charitable activities. The assessee was getting benefit of the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act from the very beginning and up to A.Y 2007-08. There were scrutiny assessments earlier and the last one was in the A.Y 2007-08 vide order dated 07/12/2009. The case for A.Y 2008-09 was also taken up for scrutiny but the case was finally referred for special audit u/s 14 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on). The Tribunal restored the registration vide the order dated 11/05/2012 in ITA No. 913/Del/2012. The department filed the appeal against the order of the Tribunal, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26/09/2013 in ITA No. 37/2013. 4. The assessee also applied for exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act and the same was rejected by the DGIT(Exemption). The assessee appealed against this order and the Hon'ble High Court allowed the appeal vide order dated 05/03/2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that the Assessing Officer was not justified to deny the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act, as the assessee is a charitable institution and is not involved in any trade, commerce or business and there is no justification to invoke the mischief of the Proviso of section 2(15) as mere receipt of income or fees cannot be said that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business as there is no profit motive and no income or profit was used or diverted for any personal benefit and the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

act, the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26.09.2013 has given a detailed finding that there was no change in object and functions of the assessee. Therefore, rejection of the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act was not right on part of Assessing Officer. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is submitted that in earlier Assessment Years the Exemption was granted by the Department which was taken into cognizance by the CIT(A) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version