TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying a different opinion, for the present assessment year. Accordingly, the grounds are not sustainable and the appeal of revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 5589/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2022 - SH. SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Aafaq Bhatri , CA Revenue by : Shri Anuj Garg , Sr. DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA , JM : The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 05.06.2018 in appeal no. 133/17-18 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority in short Ld. F.A.A. ) in regard to the appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of section 11(5), the assessee was asked to explain why this be not treated as violation committed within the meaning of provisions of section 13(1)(d) and why benefit of section 11 12 should not be withdrawn and entire surplus of Rs. 5,93,77,490/- be not treated as income for the year under consideration. 2.2 The Assessing Officer discussed the various documents relied upon by the assessee and held that the assessee had committed violation within the meaning of provisions of section 13(1)( d) by making investment of Rs. 15,00,000/- in equity shares numbering 1,50,000 of Rs. 10/- each and investment of Rs. 2,85,00,000/- in Share Application Money in BARC for purchase of shares of BARC in contravention to the provisions of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchasing shares worth Rs. 15 Lac and investment by way of Share. Application Money in Broadcast Audience Research Foundation permissible investment within the meaning of section I 1 (5)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law. l.d CIT(A) has erred in holding that the observation of Hon ble Delhi High Court in its order in WP(C) 2489/2017 and CM no. 35799/2016 in the matter of stay of demand in the case of the assessee is binding on her even though the Hon ble Court had only made an observation that the amount deposited with Broadcast Audience Research council (BARG) was not by way of investment or choice but an account of Central Govt Policy and the matter was not decided on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Television industry and viewership in India. There is also no dispute in respect of the claim of the assessee that, being an Industry body, the assessee represents the interest of its member TV broadcasters including public sector broadcaster Doordarshan. BARC was set up to provide reliable and transparent information needed by the members and various stakeholders of assessee in taking various crucial business decisions relating to their businesses. 10. On a careful consideration of the objects of the BARC, we have no hesitation to hold that the BARC enables assessee to fulfil its 'objects incidental or ancillary to the attainment of the main objects, like to affiliate, admit to membership, aid and to receive aid from any other so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh Public Charitable Trust [2001] 250 ITR 475 (Delhi), Anand Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [2002] 123 Taxman 494 (Delhi), Director of Income tax v. Alarippu (2000) 111 TAXMAN 511 (Delhi), Director of Income tax v. Acme Educational society (2010) 326 ITR 146 (Delhi), CIT v. Aloo Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1979] 1 Taxman 433 (Bom.), and Third Income-tax Officer v. Jhaverbhai Patel Ch. Trust [1992] 43 ITD 195 (Bom.) it cannot be said that the assessee invested the amounts and committed violation within the meaning of section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. Further, whatever may be stage, the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case, to the effect that the amounts in question were deposited with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or choice, but on account of a Central Government policy. The Court is of the opinion that this peculiar circumstance warrants adoption of the policy, spelt out in para 4(D) of the memorandum dated 29.02.2016. The petitioner s appeal may, therefore, be decided by the concerned Appellate Commissioner within three months from today. Pending a final decision, no coercive steps shall be taken to enforce the demand. In the light of the above order, the petitioner shall ensure that the review application filed before the CIT(E) and the Chief Commissioner is withdrawn within a week. 8. However, the matter of fact remains that subsequently by judgment dated 14.09.2020 the Co-ordinate Bench has decided on merits in favour of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
