TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal affirms CIT(A)'s decision on trust's exemption, rejects Revenue's challenge. Legal principles upheld.</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Versus M/s Bommanji Dinshaw</h3> Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Versus M/s Bommanji Dinshaw - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are related to the exemption claimed u/s 10(23C) (via) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the treatment of corpus donation and its application, application of capital nature and claim of depreciation, satisfaction of conditions for exemption u/s 10(23C)(via), allowing of depreciation resulting in double deduction, and set off of deficit against income leading to double deduction.Exemption u/s 10(23C) (via):The assessee, a charitable trust, initially declared a loss and later revised it. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment at an income of Rs. Nil under section 143(3) (ii) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the exemption u/s 10(23C) (via) of the Act to the assessee. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that no claim was made by the assessee for this exemption. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision based on the approval granted by the prescribed authority and previous orders exempting the hospital u/s 10(23C) (via) for earlier assessment years.Treatment of Corpus Donation and Depreciation:The Revenue contended that the assessee was enjoying double deduction by claiming deduction for donations towards corpus fund and then treating the same assets as expenditure for purchase and application of income. The Tribunal referred to legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court and held that there was no double deduction claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal distinguished the case from previous judgments and rejected the Revenue's grounds, upholding the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim.Satisfaction of Conditions for Exemption u/s 10(23C)(via):The Revenue argued that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 10(23C)(via) for the income received by gift for old age home purpose. However, the Tribunal found that the approval granted by the prescribed authority covered the assessment year in question, and the issue was fully covered in favor of the assessee based on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds and upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision.Allowing of Depreciation and Set Off of Deficit:The Revenue raised concerns about allowing depreciation leading to double deduction and set off of deficit against income resulting in double deduction. The Tribunal, following a recent judgment and consistent view, held that there was no double deduction claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds and dismissed the appeal, affirming the ld. CIT(A)'s decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow the exemption u/s 10(23C) (via) to the assessee, finding no double deduction claimed by the assessee in the treatment of corpus donation and depreciation. The Tribunal also confirmed that the conditions for exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) were satisfied and dismissed the Revenue's concerns regarding allowing depreciation and set off of deficit, ruling in favor of the assessee based on legal principles and previous judgments.
TaxTMI 