TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 811
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Asstt. Year 2005-06, respectively. 2. We shall first take I.T.A. No.131/Del2009. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has taken a ground that CIT has erred in law and on facts in refusing condonation of application for registration u/s 12AA with retrospective effect from 1.4.2001. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed an application for registration u/s 12AA on 1.6.2007 and order thereupon u/s 12AA was passed by the CIT on 1.11.2007. The assessee made an application for registration u/s 12AA to be granted with retrospective effect from 1.4.2001. However, learned CIT has stated that as per the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2007, the provision for condoning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom any date earlier than the date of the first day of financial year in which the application is made, given to the Commissioner has been taken away by the Statute by inserting a proviso to that clause in respect of an application for registration made on or after 01.06.2007. Since no power to condone the delay is available to the Commissioner in respect of the application for registration filed u/s 12A on or after 01.06.2007, the question of condoning the delay on his part did or could not arise. 7. In this view of the matter we have taken above, we, therefore, hold that the CIT has rightly held that in respect of the application made on or after 1.6.2007, he has no power of condonation so as to grant registration from earlier date oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s income of the assessee as it was done by him in the last assessment year 2004-05, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 23.10.2007. 10. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 11. Following the reasoning given in detail by CIT(A) in his order dated 23.10.2007 pertaining to the Asstt. Year 2004-05, the learned CIT(A) decided the issue against the assessee in the Asstt. Year 2005-06 as was so done in Asstt. Year 2004-05. 12. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. In the course of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the AO's order as well as the order of the CIT(A) dated 23.10.2007 passed in the Asstt. year 2004-05, h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,99,676.84. Now the AO is treating the interest component as income of the assessee. He has not taken cognizance of the principal amount. In other words, if principal amount does not belong to the assessee because of overriding title of the Government then how interest income on principal amount would belong to the assessee. The facts before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) vs Delhi Industrial Development are identical. In that a scheme was formulated by Delhi Administration for development of Narela Industrial Complex. The assessee was to be in charge of development of the complex. For management of the financial resources Narela Revolving fund was created and separate books of accounts were maintained relating to the transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is no question of adding the amount to the income of the assessee, who was only a development agency." 7. Similarly, ITAT in the case of Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and finance Corporation found the assessee as a nodal agency for implementation of the mega city scheme worked out by the Planning Commission and Ministry of Urban and Employment for development of Urban Infrastructure to Bangalore city. The Tribunal found that the funds deposited by the Finance Corporation relates to the State Government and it was holding such funds as a trustee on behalf of the Govt. Against this decision the department went in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court has also upheld the order of the Tribunal the judgm....