TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 32,90,030/-, being the amount spent outside India as not an application of money in India in terms of provisions of section 11 of the Act. It is also raised that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said disallowance, being the amount spent outside India, though the main object of the Council is to promote exports in silk industries for the country falling under the head public utility services. 3. The assessee-trust filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010 - 11 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. During the course of assessment for the impugned assessment year, the AO found that the assessee had spent the following amount outside India. Particulars Amount spent outside India (Rs.)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia Brand Equity Foundation, 53 SOT 506 and National Association of Software and Services Companies (supra) and confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 32,90,030/- made by the AO. 5. The ld. counsel of the assessee submits before us that the decision relied on by the AO and ld. CIT(A) are different from the case of the assessee in the following manner. India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) is not an Export Promotion Council. It did not get any grants from Government to organize an exhibition abroad. It got funds from Engineering Export Promotion Council to hold the exhibition abroad. IBEF was not liable to refund the unspent amount to any authorities as against the appellant company is bound to refund the entire amount of grants if not utilized as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "H" Benches Mumbai in the case of M/s The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (ITA No. 5143/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06), (ITA No. 5144/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07) & (ITA No. 5145/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2007-08) stating that the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in DIT vs. M/s The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council [ITA (LOD) No. 1113 of 2010] and allowed exemption u/s 11 to the assessee. The ld. counsel submits that facts being similar, the assessee-trust in the instant case is also entitled to exemption u/s 11 by following the referred decision of the jurisdictional High Court. 5.3 An alternative argument is made by the ld. counsel of the assessee stating that all grants received with specific direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh the order of the Tribunal mentions it. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal in M/s The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council(supra) and find that the issue of holding exhibition is there. But the issue of holding exhibition outside India is not apparent from the order. 7.1 We find that the alternative argument advanced by the ld. counsel of the assessee has got a direct bearing on the instant case . The ld counsel of the assessee has relied inter-alia on the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council(supra), wherein it has been held: "It was well known that the grants-in-aid were made by the Government to provide certain institutions with sufficient funds to carry on their char....