TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Partially Allows AO's Appeal on Income Tax Act Section 11 Exemption</h1> The Tribunal partially allowed the AO's appeal, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s order regarding exemption u/s. 11 of ... - Issues involved: Appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) regarding exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act, violation of Bombay Public Trust Act, and admission of additional evidence without giving a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer.Exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act:The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the benefits of section 11 to the assessee, citing non-maintenance of 10% of beds for indigent patients and weaker sections, leading to a violation of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The AO found that only 25 patients were treated at concessional rates, contrary to the claim of free treatment. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the assessee had kept 10% of beds reserved for the needy, transferred 2% of gross revenue to the Indigent Patients Fund, and provided free treatment to the poor and needy, with specific beds reserved for them.Violation of Bombay Public Trust Act:The AO contended that the assessee's actions violated the norms of the Bombay Public Trust Act, impacting the eligibility for section 11 benefits. However, the FAA found that the assessee had not breached the provisions of the BPT Act, as specific beds were reserved for poor and weaker sections, and funds were allocated for indigent patients.Admission of additional evidence:During the appeal hearing, it was noted that certain documents were filed before the FAA but not presented to the AO. The Departmental Representative argued that the FAA admitted additional evidence without giving a reasonable opportunity to the AO. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of affording the AO a chance to examine or counter additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the FAA for a fair hearing and a fresh order, ensuring principles of natural justice were upheld.Conclusion:The Tribunal partially allowed the effective ground of appeal filed by the AO, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal. The case was remanded to the FAA for a fair hearing, emphasizing the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to all parties involved in the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
