TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 4,19,88,831/- vide assessment order dtd. 31-12-2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Ground No. 1 & 2 read as under:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Brief facts of the above issues are that during the course of assessment proceeding, the A.O. observed that the assessee has shown receipt of Rs. 3,25,47,119/- under the head 'Management Development Program & Consultancy Charges' (in short MDP) in the case of one of the institutions NMIMS University. Since these activities of the assessee were organised as a regular activities, the assessee was asked to explain as to why they may not be treated as business activities and income from them may no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tc., the assessee cannot be said to be conducting any business just because of the fact that there is some surplus in the hands of the assessee which is applied towards the attainment of object of the educational institute and not for the personal benefit of a particular person. He further observed that the assessee is maintaining separate ledger account for Management Development Programme which should be regarded as sufficient compliance of provisions to section 11(4A) of the Act as held by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Jesuit Conference of India (2010) 40 DTR (Del) (Tribunal) 493 and accordingly he held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 11(4A) of the Act in respect of MDP. As regards the income from hiring of premises and advertisement rights, the ld. CIT(A) observed that various halls and properties are given on hire when they are not required for education purpose of the Institute i.e. on Saturdays and Sundays or on public holidays. He further observed that income from these rentals are applied towards the educational purpose of the Institute and, hence, eligible to claim exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) after relying on the decision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that the assessee has given various halls and properties of the Institute only on Saturdays and Sundays or on public holidays. These halls are not required for educational activities and income from these rentals are applied towards the educational purpose of the Institute, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Chamber of Commerce (supra) the income is exempt and, hence, he deleted the addition made by the A.O. In the absence of any contrary material placed on record by the Revenue against the aforesaid finding of the ld. CIT(A) and keeping in view that the assessee is maintaining separate books of accounts for each Institute and also keeping in view that the rental income is applied towards the educational purpose of the Institute, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11(4A) and 11 (1) of the Act and in deleting the additions made by the A.O. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, rejected. 10. Ground No. 3 reads as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was right in ignoring the ratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....63 (Bom). (viii) CIT vs. Sheth Manilal Ranchoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj) (ix) CIT vs. Raipur Pallottine Society (1989) 180 ITR 579 (MP). He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 14. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute. In the present case the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been held by the Revenue Authorities. The income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee is only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purpose of Trust. Thus there is no double deduction claimed by the assessee. Recently the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) after distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) while relying on various decisions including the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Institute of Banking (supra) has held vide penultimate para 10 as un....