TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier assessment years. In the case of DIT(Exemption) vs. Sri Ramakrishna Seva Ashrama [ 2011 (10) TMI 369 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] had held that if the intention of the donor is to give money to a Trust and to utilize the same for carrying out a particular activity, it satisfies the definition of the word corpus fund . It was concluded by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court that the assessee would thus be entitled to the benefit of section 11(1)(d) of the Act. We are of the view that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11(1)(d) of amount received during the concerned assessment year, i.e., 2011-12. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and we uphold the same as correct - Appeal filed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed a sum of Rs.2,53,18,335/- claimed by the assessee as exempt income under section 11((1)(d) of the Act, being contribution to the building development fund. The relevant observation of the Assessing Officer In disallowing the claim of the assessee reads as follows: Contribution to building fund which assessee considered as exempt income under section 11(10(d) is a wrong claim as long a the specific direction described in Act does not come, they are just voluntary contribution pnly. So the sum is added back in total income + Rs.2,53,18,335/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, it was contended that these donations are corpus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer to delete the addition of Rs.2,53,18,335/-. 6. The Revenue, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee could not prove that the donors had given donations to the Corpus Fund. It was stated that since the assessee was not maintaining a separate account for this purpose, the Assessing Officer was justified in denying the claim made under section 11(1)(d) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR on the other hand relied on the submissions made before the Income Tax authorities and relied on the conclusions of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 58 pages. In the paper book, the aud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
