TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the Tribunal has held that the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee. The order passed by the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, is based on the meticulous appreciation of materials on record and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse. The issue with regard to the perversity is not raised on behalf of the revenue. Appeal dismissed. - IT APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2020 - Alok Aradhe And M.I. Arun, JJ. For the Appellant : Sanmathi E.I., Adv. For the Respondent : Chythanya K.K., Adv. JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE, J. 1. Mr. Sanmathi E.I, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.Chythanya K.K., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal under section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 9-8-2017 on the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts of the case, the Tribunal is right in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed limit of ₹ 10 lakhs and therefore, the same is hit by Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is also argued that the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the net profit of the assessee was ₹ 155,76,64,004/-, which works out to 80% of the turn over and which is more than even a private builder or developer could earn. It was further pointed out that the Assessing Officer held that the site/lands which were purchased at lower rates are developed and sold to private industries at higher rate through auctions generating huge profits. Hence, assessee cannot claim deduction under section 11 of the Act. It was also pointed out that the Assessing Authority has rightly held that the benefit of Section 10(20A) is not available to the assessee as the same has been deleted w.e.f. 1-4-2003. 5. The learned counsel for the revenue has also invited the attention of this Court to the Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19-12-2008, which came into force w.e.f., 1-4-2009 and in particular has invited our attention to paragraph 3.2 of the aforesaid Circular to point out that the assessee, who claim that their object is 'charitable purpose' within the meaning of section 2(15), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulous appreciation of the material on record has recorded a finding and has held that the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee. The contention that the Tribunal has misinterpreted the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization (supra) is misconceived. It is also submitted that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the decisions of the various High Courts. In this connection, learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the following decisions rendered by the different High Courts: (a) CIT v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 366 (Guj.); (b) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Union of India [2018] 91 taxmann.com 352/254 Taxman 289/406 ITR 418 (Delhi); (c) CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar' [2013] 38 taxmann.com 246/219 Taxman 162 (All.); (d) CIT v. Jodhpur Development Authority [2017] 79 taxmann.com 361 (Raj.); (e) CIT (Exemption) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81 taxman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. Thus, from the provisions of the Act, it is axiomatic that the Board of the assessee functions under all pervasive control of the State Government. The Board has been constituted to carry out the activities towards public purpose, namely, orderly establishment and development of Industries in suitable areas in the State. 8. The Tribunal, inter alia by taking into account the provisions of the Act, has held that the primary and dominant object of the assessee is not profit making. It has further been held that income side of income and expenditure account shows that the main component of income of the assessee is derived in the form of interest of ₹ 131.17 crores and the interest of fixed deposits is ₹ 120.90 crores. Therefore, there is no profit element in earning income as interest. It has also been noticed that the income of the assessee comprises of repairs and maintenance, administrative expenses, water and electricity charges, special and other charges, depreciation. It has also been held by the Tribunal that the assessee has been established to promote rapid and orderly development of industries in the State and to assist in implementation of the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
