9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to as 'ITAT') in ITA Nos. 1919/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2009-10, 2508/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 and 3135/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the activities of the respondent/assessee do not qualify for charitable purpose in view of the Proviso to Sec 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and hence the assessee does not qualify for the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv)/11/12 of the Act. 4. It is pertinent to mention that in a writ petition being India Trade Promotion Organization vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Others in WP(C) 1872/2013, the learned p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d always endeavour to uphold the Constitutional validity of a provision and, in doing so, the provision in question may have to be read down, as pointed out above, in Arun Kumar (supra). xxx xxx xxx xxx 58. In conclusion, we may say that the expression "charitable purpose", as defined in Section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act. It is also clear that if the literal interpretation is given to the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act, then the proviso would be at risk of running fowl of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act, it has to be read down in the manner indicated by us. As a consequence, the impugned order dated 23.01.2013 is set aside and a mandamus is issued to the respondent to grant approval to the petitioner under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act within six weeks from the date of this judgment. The writ petition stands allowed as above. The parties are left to bear their own costs." 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/revenue states that the revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP(C) No.8434/2017 against the judgment passed in WP(C) 1872/2013 which is pending consideration in the Supreme Court. In the said Special Leave Petitions, Leave has been granted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
