TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... society has invested its income of ₹ 1,04,53,634/- in fixed assets like construction of building with a view to expand institution and to earn more income, in the light of Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand decision in the case of CIT Vs. Queens Educational Society in ITA No.103 of 2007 and Hon'ble SC agreeing with the findings of the High Court, in case (1992) (3) SCC 390. 2. On the basis of the Ground of appeal, the first point made out by the learned D.R. is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) was not justified in allowing application of income under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) with respect to the expenditure incurred on construction of building. In this regard, the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of loan raised for construction of school building amounting to ₹ 59.08 lacs is an application of income towards the objectives of the trust. In coming to such conclusion the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has followed the order of his predecessor in assessee s own case for assessment year 2005-06 and also the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2003-04 vide order in I.T.A.No.266/Chd/2007 dated 22.11.2007. Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The learned D.R. has merely relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer in support of the appeal of the Revenue. 4. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements to hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant trust is applying its income for the objectives other than stated in the trust deed. The case laws cited by the Assessing Officer of Hon'ble Uttrakhand High Court in the case of CIT, Haldwani Vs. M/s Queen s Educational Society (ITA No.103 of 2007) is not applicable to the case of the appellant as in that case, the exemption was sought u/s 10(23)(iiiad) whereas the assessee is claiming exemption u/s 11(1)(a). Hence, the ratio of the judgment is not applicable to the case of the appellant. 7. The Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has correctly noted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Uttrakhand High Court in the case of M/s Queen s Educational Society (supra) stands on a different footing in as much as it was a case rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
