TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2021 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Nisant Thakkar, A.R. Ms. Jasmine Amalsadvala. For the Revenue : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R. ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member : The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.01.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2015-16. 2. The issue raised in ground No.1 2 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of AO whereby the AO has denied exemption under section 11 of the Act on the ground that proviso to section 2(15) of the Act applies to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer denied the exemption available to the assessee under section 11 of the Act on the ground that the activities of the assessee fall within the meaning of advancement of any other object of general public utility as specified in proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. We find that for the identical reason benefit under section 11 of the Act was denied to the assessee in assessment year 2010-11. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.6678/Mum/2013. The Tribunal vide order dated 04/06/2019 examined the issue of assessee s eligibility to claim the benefit of exemption under section 11 threadbare. In a detailed order, after considering various judicial pronoucements and different facets of the argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pe of definition of charitable purposes in section 2(15) but also the scope of restriction provided in proviso to section 2(15). If the principle laid down by Hon ble High Court is applied here in this case, then ostensibly under the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee as discussed above, would not only be held as an institution carrying out charitable purposes but its activities clearly are beyond the scope of restrictive provisions of the proviso. The most crucial test and the findings which needs to be seen specifically if the proviso to section 2(15) is to be applied in the cases like assessee is to see, whether their activities can be reckoned as in the nature of trade, commerce and business. Some of the tests of appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies at below the market price? If it sells the property at below the market price, is it substantially below the market price? xiii) In implementation of its objects and purpose does the Institution sell its properties at a low price and consciously and deliberately forgoes the profit which it could easily have made. xiv) Does the Institution stick to its resolve to sell properties at predetermined rates even though the demand supply position for housing is such that it could have sold the properties at a much higher rate? xv) Does it sell properties by inviting bids and allotting the property on the basis of a draw of lots rather than allotting the properties by holding an auction which would ensure the receipt of the hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in and its activities fall within advancement of objects of general public utility , hence existing for charitable purpose . 49. Further, the issues raised in ground No.3 will become purely academic in view of our finding given above that the assessee is entitled for benefit u/s.11 and accordingly, its income and expenditure have to be computed in terms of section 11 to section 13. 10. The ld. Departmental Representative has raised objection that the facts in the impugned assessment year whether are similar to preceding assessment years is not clearly emanating from impugned order. We do not find force in the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative. The CIT(A) in para-7.9 of the impugned order has observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
