2013 (9) TMI 767

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the order dated 2.7.2013 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No. 10 as well as the order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the Chief Commissioner, contained in Annexure No.11 to the writ petition. Petitioner-'State Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Agency' [hereinafter referred to as the "SIFPSA"], which is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, has been engaged in implementation of innovation in Family Planning Services Projects to assist the State of Uttar Pradesh for reducing the rate of population growth to a level consistent with its social and economic objectives. According to the petitioner, as the purpose of the SIFPSA has been solely charitable purpose as d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment Year 2012-2013, on the grounds that Circular No. 7/2010 dated 27.10.2010 contained in Annexure No.7 clearly provided that once the approval has been granted under sub-section 4 of Clause 23-C of Section 10 of the Act, no subsequent approval would be needed unless the approval is withdrawn by the competent authority. Further, Vide circular dated 27.10.2010, it has been clarified that in all such cases where approval/renewal under section 10 (23C)(iv) is granted after 13.7.2006, it becomes one time affair, and an assessee is not required to undergo the ritual of seeking 'renewals' repeatedly for every 'three year' period. But the Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax did not accept the aforesaid contention and rejected the application v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under sub-clause 4 of Clause 23-C of Section 10 of the Act, there is no necessity to accord subsequent approval unless the approval is withdrawn by the competent authority but the Chief Commissioner did not adhere to the provisions of Circular dated 27.10.2010 and has wrongly proceeded with the application dated 25.7.2011 and rejected the same. On the other hand, Sri D.D.Chopra, learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that as the conditions for utilization of accumulation as per 3rd proviso to Section 10 (23C) are not satisfied in this case and as such, the Chief Commissioner has rightly proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned orders. Therefore, there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders. Having h....