Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the assessee, a trust registered u/s 12AA, qualified for exemption u/s 11 as a charitable entity. The AO argued the trust's activities were commercial due to rental receipts exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs, thus not charitable u/s 2(15). The CIT(A) allowed exemption. The Tribunal found no profit motive in the trust's activities, with funds invested for charitable purposes. The AO failed to justify treating rental income as commercial. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case allowing a 20% mark-up on receipts for exemption. The CBDT clarified that mere receipts do not make income commercial. The proviso to section 2(15) requires public utility activities not exceeding 20% of total receipts for exemption. As rent receipts were below 20%, the proviso didn't apply. Even if it did, full exemption u/s 11 couldn't be withdrawn. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant benefits u/s 11 & 12, ruling against the revenue authority.
The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the assessee, a trust registered u/s 12AA, qualified for exemption u/s 11 as a charitable entity. The AO argued the trust's activities were commercial due to rental receipts exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs, thus not charitable u/s 2(15). The CIT(A) allowed exemption. The Tribunal found no profit motive in the trust's activities, with funds invested for charitable purposes. The AO failed to justify treating rental income as commercial. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case allowing a 20% mark-up on receipts for exemption. The CBDT clarified that mere receipts do not make income commercial. The proviso to section 2(15) requires public utility activities not exceeding 20% of total receipts for exemption. As rent receipts were below 20%, the proviso didn't apply. Even if it did, full exemption u/s 11 couldn't be withdrawn. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant benefits u/s 11 & 12, ruling against the revenue authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
