TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO to allow the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act with all the consequential benefits vide order dated 15/9/2015, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. Non deduction of TDS - assessee has paid as honorarium to the doctors coming from abroad and its cannot be considered as an application of income in India for charitable purposes - Held that:- We find that assessee is not running any hospital towards which this expense has been incurred. The assessee just conducted a seminar for the benefit of its parent body i.e. Escorts Hospital, which is a private company. The expense has been incurred outside India and therefore, it is a violation of Section 11(1)(c) and the above transaction is covered under the FEMA Act, for which the approval of the RBI is essential. Since assessee is remitting funds outside India and claiming its as application of income, which is violation of section 11(1)(C), hence, the amount of ₹ 9,76,031/- was rightly disallowed by the AO and accordingly, assessment was rightly completed at income of ₹ 10,10,88,303/- vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od A.Y 2008-09 to 2011-12. The main object of the assessee is to build, maintain and run hospitals, dispensaries and laboratories for treatment of various ailments diseases and to launch activities for relief of poor, education other medical reliefs. For the first time in the A.Y 1995-96, the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act was denied but the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee and Tribunal had also confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in ITA NO. 522/Del/99 dated 13/11/2003 and Department did not file the appeal before the higher Court for the A.Y 1995-96. The AO had denied the exemption u/s 11(1) for the A.Ys. 1996-97, 1997-98 1998- by following the earlier year's order but the appeal of the assessee was allowed by Tribunal. The department had filed the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, but Hon'ble Delhi High Court had dismissed the appeal of the Department vide ITA Nos. 28/2006 29/2006 613/2005 all dated 24/01/2007. Thereafter, the Department filed the SLP before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP of the Department. The exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act for the A.Y 2003- 04, 2004-05 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recedence and consistency and judicial discipline the AO was directed to allow the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act with all the consequential benefits vide impugned order dated 15/9/2015. As regards addition of ₹ 9,76,031/- on account of non-deduction of tax is concerned, Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per the DTAA between India and USA was not liable to be taxed in India and AO has not made out any specific case and accordingly the addition made by the AO was deleted. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR heavily relied upon the Order of the AO and reiterated the contents raised in the grounds of appeal and controvert the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). In support of his contention he filed a Paper Book containing pages 1-51 in which he has attached the brief written submissions; grounds of appeal and Form No. 36; CIT(A) s order against 154; Rectification order u/s. 154; Ground of appeal and Form NO. 36; CIT(A) s order; Assessment order; Notice u/s. 142(1) and Questionnaire; Notice u/s. 143(2) and Return of income. He submitted that AO noticed that assessee has received sponsorship fees amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -04, 2004-05 2005- 06 was allowed to the assessee as a charitable society who is engaged in providing medical relief. In view of above, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that following the rule of consistency and judicial discipline, the Appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed by upholding the Ld. CIT(A) s order. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. We find that AO had denied the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act for the A.Ys. 1996-97, 1997-98 1998- by following the earlier year's order, but the appeal of the assessee was allowed by Tribunal. The department had filed the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court who had dismissed the appeal of the Department vide ITA Nos. 28/2006 29/2006 613/2005 all dated 24/01/2007. Later, the Department filed the SLP before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India against the order of the Hon ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had dismissed the SLP of the Department. Accordingly, the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act for the A.Y 2003-04, 2004-05 2005- 06 was allowed to the assessee as a charitable society who is engaged in providing medical relief. We further find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2015, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. 7. As regards disallowance of ₹ 9,76,031/- for non deduction of tax to the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid as honorarium to the doctors coming from abroad and its cannot be considered as an application of income in India for charitable purposes and made the addition vide the assessment order dated 26.3.2013. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO on this issue and stated that AO has rightly observed that the assessee had paid honorarium of ₹ 9,76,031/- to the professional / doctors who attended the seminars. The payment was made outside India through banking channels despite the assessee society has not obtained the approval of the RBI and such transaction is covered under the FEMA Act, which is violation of provisions of section 11(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence, he submitted that the AO has rightly disallowed the honorarium paid to the tune of ₹ 9,76,031/- outside India. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly observed that in view of the DTAA between India and U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
