9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the case is the Ld.CIT(A) justified in allowing the assessee's appeal in deleting the addition of development fund made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 41,66,000/-. 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case is the Ld. CIT(A) justified in giving the benefit of section 11 & 12 to the assessee which the Assessing Officer disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii). 4) Whether on the facts circumstances of the case is the Ld.CIT(A) justified in allowing the assessee's appeal in deleting the addition of capital expenditure made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 8,10,86,589/-. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is that learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,51,79,106.00. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is a society and engag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same to be having prospective operation only in DIT vs. Al Ameen Charitable Trust fund (2016) 67 taxmann.com 160. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding under challenge." 8.1. As the issue on hand is identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. The second issue raised by the Revenue is that learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of development fund amounting to Rs. 41,66,000.00. 10. The assessee during the year has received one-time development fee from the students and treated the same as corpus fund under section 11(1)(d) of the Act. However, the AO was of the view that such receipt is a voluntary contribution and accordingly treated the income of the assessee. 11. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT (A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO. 12. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 13. The learned DR and the learned AR before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous year. A co-ordinate bench in ITO vs. J. D. Tytler School Society (2014) 49 taxmann.com 294 (Delhi) holds that such a development fund forming part of student fee as utilized in their amenities and welfare is in the nature of capital receipt not assesseable as income. We therefore find no reason to upset CIT(A)'s above extracted conclusion. This fifth substantive ground is accordingly rejected." 14.1. As the issue on hand is identical to the facts of the case as discussed above, therefore we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 15. The third issue raised by the Revenue is that learned CIT (A) erred in allowing the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act for the rent paid to the trustees. 15.1. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has paid rent to the trustees in contravention to the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee is not eligible for exemptions under section 11 and 12 of the Act. 16. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT (A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO. 17. Bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 22. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT (A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO. 23. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 24. The learned DR and the learned AR before us relied on the order of authorities below as favorable to them. 25. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the tribunal in the own case of the assessee bearing ITA No. 92/AHD/2014 pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 decided the issue against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide order dated 14-9-2017. The relevant extract of the order is extracted below. "12. The Revenue's seventh substantive ground pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering assessee's investment in fixed assets amounting to Rs. 13,51,02,167/- as application of income as well as its deduction. There is no dispute about the assessee have incurred the impugned expenditure. The Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee's instant action amounted to claiming the very relief in bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
