2015 (8) TMI 717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd of Direct Taxes on an application for grant of approval for exemption under Section 10 (23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. By virtue of the impugned order dated 29.10.2013, the application of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. This case has had a long history. We need not go into all the details. Only a few facts are necessary. First, the assessments for the years in question had been completed but have been set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and have been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after the decision of the CBDT on the application for exemption. Second, on an earlier occasion the CBD....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upreme Court decision in American Hotel and Lodging Association (Supra) that insofar as the third proviso is concerned, the same relates to application of funds and that would be a matter which would arise for consideration at a later stage. In other words, the third proviso prescribes a monitoring condition rather than a condition for grant of or rejection of approval. The Division Bench further clarified that it is only in the event that the conditions stipulated in the third proviso are not fulfilled, after the grant of exemption, that the prescribed authority is empowered to withdraw the approval earliergranted after complying with the procedure mentioned therein. There is also a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Q....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n a technical ground, with the direction to decide the issue de novo after disposal of the assessee's application seeking exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) by the CBDT does not in any manner nullify the findings of the Assessing Officer for the given three assessment years based on the accounts of the assessee." We are unable to understand as to how could the CBDT have made such a remark that even though the assessment orders had been set aside the findings would still hold good. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the CBDT has looked at the assessment orders while examining the application for grant of approval which was prohibited by the Bombay High Court by virtue of its directions given in the writ petition which the petitione....