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>Trust wins exemption challenge after seized documents from employees fail to prove unauthorized fee collection</h1> <h3>Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Versus DCIT, CC-7 (1), Mumbai And (Vice-Versa)</h3> Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University Versus DCIT, CC-7 (1), Mumbai And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Collection of Capitation Fees2. Rejection of Books of Accounts3. Denial of Exemption u/s. 114. Corpus Donations and Development Fees5. Capital Expenditure as Application of Income6. Levy of Tax u/s. 115BBE7. Depreciation on Opening Balance of Assets8. Set Off of Carry Forward Deficit9. Addition of Sale Value of Assets10. Alleged Bogus Purchases11. Protective Additions of Cash Seized12. Unexplained Expenditure13. Cash Seized from Shri Bhagirath PatilSummary of Judgment:1. Collection of Capitation Fees:The Tribunal examined whether the assessee trust collected capitation fees. The AO's conclusion was based on materials seized from employees' residences. The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence from the assessee's premises linking it to capitation fees. Statements from trustees and employees were retracted, and the Tribunal held that materials seized from employees lacked evidentiary value without independent corroboration.2. Rejection of Books of Accounts:The AO rejected the books of accounts alleging unaccounted capitation fees. The Tribunal, finding no evidence of capitation fees collection, held that the rejection of books was unjustified and directed acceptance of the books of accounts.3. Denial of Exemption u/s. 11:The AO denied exemption u/s. 11, alleging the trust was not charitable due to capitation fees collection. The Tribunal restored the exemption, noting no evidence of capitation fees and that the registration u/s. 12A was intact.4. Corpus Donations and Development Fees:The AO denied exemption for corpus donations and development fees, presuming them non-voluntary. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting this presumption and directed exemption u/s. 11(1)(d) for these donations.5. Capital Expenditure as Application of Income:The AO disallowed capital expenditure as application of income due to denial of exemption u/s. 11. The Tribunal, restoring the exemption, directed that capital expenditure be treated as application of income.6. Levy of Tax u/s. 115BBE:The AO levied tax u/s. 115BBE due to rejection of books and denial of exemption. The Tribunal, restoring the exemption and accepting the books, directed not to levy tax u/s. 115BBE.7. Depreciation on Opening Balance of Assets:The AO disallowed depreciation on assets whose value was treated as application of income. The Tribunal directed allowing depreciation for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 and restricting it for subsequent years only on assets whose value was allowed as application of income.8. Set Off of Carry Forward Deficit:The AO rejected the set off of carry forward deficit. The Tribunal, restoring exemption u/s. 11, directed allowing the set off as per relevant case laws.9. Addition of Sale Value of Assets:The AO added the sale value of assets as income. The Tribunal, restoring exemption u/s. 11, directed deletion of this addition.10. Alleged Bogus Purchases:The AO added amounts for alleged bogus purchases based on third-party statements. The Tribunal, finding the purchases genuine and the third-party statements retracted, directed deletion of the addition.11. Protective Additions of Cash Seized:The AO made protective additions for cash seized from employees. The Tribunal, finding no evidence linking the cash to the assessee and noting the employees' declarations under IDS, directed deletion of these additions.12. Unexplained Expenditure:The AO added amounts for unexplained expenditure based on entries in seized documents. The Tribunal, finding no corroborative evidence, upheld the deletion of these additions by the CIT(A).13. Cash Seized from Shri Bhagirath Patil:The AO added cash seized from Shri Bhagirath Patil to the assessee's income. The Tribunal, finding no link between the cash and the assessee and noting the retraction of statements, upheld the deletion of this addition by the CIT(A).Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed all appeals of the assessee and dismissed all appeals of the revenue, directing deletion of various additions and upholding the assessee's claims for exemption and application of income.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
