TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11/12 of the Act to the assessee [ 2013 (10) TMI 211 - ITAT DELHI] Thereafter, Revenue had carried the matter before the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court [ 2019 (2) TMI 1616 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] and the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court had upheld the order of the Tribunal. Against the order of Uttarakhand High Court, Revenue had filed SLP before the Hon ble Apex Court [ 2019 (8) TMI 535 - SC ORDER] which was dismissed. We also find that identical issue arose in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2014-15 and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by following the order of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 and relying on Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court order in assessee s own case for A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following grounds: 1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 46,87,09,670/- made by the AO in respect of profit from business undertakings. 2. The order of Learned CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO observed that the trust had earned profit of ₹ 128,01,43,712/- and after setting off the loss incurred by the trust excess of income over expenditure was shown at ₹ 46,82,82,961/-. AO was of the view that the assessee trust was running business and therefore there was no exemption available in terms of amendment to Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act. Assessee was therefore asked to show-cause as to why exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust during the year exceeds ₹ 25 lakh, being the ceiling stipulated in the second proviso of Section 2(15) of the Act the activities of the trust lose the categorically of being of the charitable nature. He therefore brought the entire income shown by the trust to tax after reducing the amount of application claimed by the trust. AO also noted that though CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 2013-14 but Department has not accepted the order of CIT(A) and is before the Hon ble ITAT. He thereafter determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 46,87,09,670/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). CIT(A) while deciding the issue no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that considering the aforesaid facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal while deciding the assessee s appeal in A.Y. 2014-15 (in ITA No.2841/Del/2018 order dated 18.12.2020) held that AO was not justified in denying the exemption u/s 11/12 of the Act. He therefore submitted that there being no change in the facts in the case year under consideration and that of earlier years, the appeal of Revenue needs to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the allowing the benefit u/s 11/12 of the Act to the assessee by CIT(A). We find that AO while deciding the case for A.Y. 2009-10 had held that the assessee was not eligible for exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
