TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. It cannot be said that the assessee invested the amounts and committed violation within the meaning of section 13 (1) (d) of the Act - whatever may be stage, the observations of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in assessee s own case [ 2017 (3) TMI 1820 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to the effect that the amounts in question were deposited with the BARC not by way of investment or choice, but on account of a Central government policy, can not be ignored - there was no violation committed by the assessee within the meaning of the provisions under section 11 (5) of the Act read with section 13 (1) (d) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.4193 and 4194/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2020 - Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member And Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. S.K.Agarwal, CA, Sh.Anish Mehta, CA For the Revenue : Sh. Jagdeesh Singh Sr. DR ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the order dated 26/4/2017 in appeal numbers 321/15-16 and 165/16-17 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Delhi ( Ld. CIT(A) ), for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, in the case of Indian Broadcasting Foundation ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Act while denying exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act by invoking section 13(1)(d) of the Act, holding that neither TRAI nor MIB ever mandated the assessee to incorporate BARC as a section 25 Company i.e., as a not for profit organization, and assessee was not mandated to get registered under section 12A read with section 12AA of the Act; that the assessee in its own wisdom chose to be registered as such and be governed by section 11 and 12 of the Act and claim exemption; and that the decision in the case of Director of Income - tax vs. Alarippu (2000) 111 Taxmann 511 (Delhi) and Director of Income - tax vs. Acme Educational Society (2010) 326 ITR 146 (Delhi) are distinguishable on facts relied by the assessee have no application to the facts of the case. Ld. Assessing Officer further observed that the provisions of the Act, override the recommendations of TRAI and MIB which the assessee agitates that investment in BARC is not in violation of section 11(1)(5) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) , however, in appeal reversed the findings of the Ld. AO, while accepting the contention of the Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust [2001] 250 ITR 475 (Delhi), Anand Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [2002] 123 Taxman 494 (Delhi), Director of Income tax v. Alarippu (2000) 111 TAXMAN 511 (Delhi), Director of Income tax v. Acme Educational society (2010) 326 ITR 146 (Delhi), CIT v. Aloo Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1979] 1 Taxman 433 (Bom.), and Third Income-tax Officer v. Jhaverbhai Patel Ch. Trust [1992] 43 ITD 195 (Bom.) he argued that in order to conclude that the deposits made by the assessee in BARC is in the nature of investment, regard must be had to the element of intention to earn any profits without which such deposits cannot be held as investment, so as to attract the provisions under section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. He also brought our attention to relevant portions of TRAI recommendations, objectives of incorporating the BARC, the recommendations of the standing committee of Parliament on information technology, the recommendations of TRP committee appointed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, guidelines for Television Rating Agencies recommended by the TRAI in his attempt to show that it is only pursuant to the recommendations of the TRA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... established as an industry led body and promoted by the Assessee; that both assessee and BARC are not for profit companies set up for meeting wider objectives of public charitable nature, namely, promotion of Television industry and viewership in India. There is also no dispute in respect of the claim of the assessee that, being an Industry body, the assessee represents the interest of its member TV broadcasters including public sector broadcaster Doordarshan. BARC was set up to provide reliable and transparent information needed by the members and various stakeholders of assessee in taking various crucial business decisions relating to their businesses. 10. On a careful consideration of the objects of the BARC, we have no hesitation to hold that the BARC enables assessee to fulfil its objects incidental or ancillary to the attainment of the main objects, like to affiliate, admit to membership, aid and to receive aid from any other society, association, company, corporation firm, partnership or person promoting or formed or intending to promote any of the objects of Company and to subscribe to or aid any such society, association, company, corporation, firm, partnership or p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
