TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irection of the donor was placed. On a specific query by the Bench the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the same was never asked by the lower authorities and, therefore, the same was not submitted. However, she hurriedly agreed that same would be submitted. CIT (Appeals) also held that there is no letter of confirmation from the donor that the amount of donation is for the corpus fund and neither the receipt issued by the assessee say that the amount of donation is towards corpus of the trust. DR did not raise any serious objection to the fact that if the assessee produces a direction of the donor i.e. Unitech Southcity educational Trust that above sum of ₹ 1.30 crores received by the assessee is with a specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : 01. ITA. No. 4831/Del/2016 filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-and ITA. No. 4873/Del/2016 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi, dated 21st of June, 2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10. 02. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a charitable trust running an Institute in the name of Institute for International Management Technology, Gurgaon. It is registered under Section 12A of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, assessee is claiming exemption under Section 11 12 of the Act. 03. The assessee filed its return of income at NIL on 30.09.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s donation. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee holding that the above sum is not a corpus donation and, therefore, he made an addition of the above sum to the income already deduction as per order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 20th December, 2011 at ₹ 89,07,340/-. Thus the total income was assessed at ₹ 2,19,07,340/-. 05. The assessee aggrieved with that order preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals), who vide para No. 7 of his order held as under :- 7. In the order under appeal i.e. order u/s. 148 dated 25.03.2014, the AO has added the amount of ₹ 1.30 crore as revenue receipt which was shown by the assessee as addition to corpus fund still treating the assessee as AOP bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the Revenue where the only ground of appeal is as under :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in ignoring that the assessee was engaged in the activity of commercialization of education and its activities did not fall under the second limb of charitable purpose‟ i.e. education‟ within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act, and therefore, was not eligible for benefit of exemption of section 11 12 of the Act. 2. On the facts and Circumsatnces of the case and in law, the ld CIT (A) erred in law in ignoring the assessee conducted technical education courses without the mandatory approval from all india council for technical edciation( AICTE) which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of fulfilment of objects of the Society and the benefit under section 11 and 12would not be available of such amount. However, this would not lead to any conclusion of the assessee having lost its charitable status. There is nothing on record to dispute the charitable nature of the assessee trust, as envisaged in its Trust Deed. The element of profit, as seen above would not render such charitable nature otiose. Therefore, there is no paradox in the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in firstly upholding the disallowance of business promotion and entertainment expenditure and then, holding the assessee entitled to the benefits of Section 11/12 of the I.T Act. 07. As the ld. CIT (Appeals) has followed the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipient when income in the form of voluntary contribution made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust. Therefore, it is not the intention of the donee but the direction of the donor that is important to determine whether the voluntary contribution received by the assessee trust is towards corpus or not. Admittedly before us no such direction of the donor was placed. On a specific query by the Bench the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the same was never asked by the lower authorities and, therefore, the same was not submitted. However, she hurriedly agreed that same would be submitted. The learned CIT (Appeals) also held that there is no letter of confirmation from the donor that the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
