2015 (8) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umstances of the case, the decision of the learned Tribunal was justified in the facts of the case in refusing the benefit of accumulation U/s. 11(2) of the Act when the petitioner had accumulated an amount of Rs. 2,91,581/- and claimed the benefit U/s. 11(2) of the Act in Form No.10 and the purpose for which the said option was claimed being specific and there being no elements of vagueness or generality involved, the decision arrived at by taking into consideration the irrelevant facts were perverse? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in coming to a finding that the objects of the trust were vague, when on the contrary the objects were very specific and when for the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he contingency where the fulfilment of any project within the object needs considerable outlay to amass sufficient money to implement it. Even after fresh consideration as per direction of Ld. ITAT I am of the opinion that the option exercised by the assessee in Form 10 have violated the requirement prescribed in the judgment in the case of trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust 199 ITR 189(Cal). Therefore, the submission of the assessee that the ratio of the cited judgment is not applicable to the facts of the trust is not acceptable. I am of the view that the option is not specific as such the benefit of sec.11(2) is not eligible to the assessee." The aforesaid order was affirmed by both the CIT(Appeal) and the learned Tribunal. The asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation to the facts and circumstances of this case because in this case admittedly there are also 28 objects, out of which only one object was indicated in the option under sub-section (2) of section 11 for which the accumulation was sought to be made. Therefore, the requirement of law was sufficiently met. He also relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax -vs- Daulat Ram Education Trust, reported in (2005) 278 ITR 260, wherein the following views were taken: "Just because more than one purpose have been specified and just because details about the plans which the assessee has for spending on such purposes are not given may not be sufficient to deny the exemption admissible to it under section 11. S....