https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245312 The HC held that the assessee violated Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Sections 13(2) and 13(3) by advancing substantial amounts to APIL without proper possession or registration, rendering it ineligible for exemption under Section 11 for the relevant years, decision favored revenue. However, the advance to Charanjiv Educational Society did not breach these provisions, and exemption denial on this ground was rejected, ruling against revenue. Regarding donations, the Tribunal's acceptance of the sources and identities of donors was upheld, rejecting revenue's challenge. Lastly, the claim for depreciation was disallowed since the asset cost was already deducted as application of income, and allowing depreciation would result in double deduction; this was decided in favor of revenue. en-us Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jul 2025 14:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245312 The HC held that the assessee violated Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Sections 13(2) and 13(3) by advancing substantial amounts to APIL without proper possession or registration, rendering it ineligible for exemption under Section 11 for the relevant years, decision favored revenue. However, the advance to Charanjiv Educational Society did not breach these provisions, and exemption denial on this ground was rejected, ruling against revenue. Regarding donations, the Tribunal's acceptance of the sources and identities of donors was upheld, rejecting revenue's challenge. Lastly, the claim for depreciation was disallowed since the asset cost was already deducted as application of income, and allowing depreciation would result in double deduction; this was decided in favor of revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245312