2017 (8) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... preferred by the assessee. 3. This court while admitting the appeals framed the following substantial questions of law : (i) Appeal No. 32 of 2008 "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not acted illegally and perversely in making observations with regard to grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) when the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any application/appeal arising out of order passed either granting or rejecting exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the competent authority ? 2. Whether, without prejudice to the facts that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to examine the merits of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that society is entitled for exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act ? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal has not acted illegally and perversely in making observations with regard to grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) when the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any application/appeal arising out of the order passed either granting or rejecting exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the competent authority ?" For convenience of the court Appeal No. 29 of 2008 is taken first. 4. In this appeal, counsel for the appellant has contended that registration was made on M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was rejected by the learned Commissioner on November 7, 2003. It was held that in view of the provisions of section 12AA it could be said that the impugned order had been passed beyond statutory period deemed to be allowed. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sardarilal Obroi Memorial Charitable Trust v. ITO (supra) referred by the learned authorised representative." 6. Mr. Mahendra Gargieya counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Society for the Promotion of Education [2016] 382 ITR 6 (SC) wherein speaking for the Bench the Supreme Court has observed as under (page 7) : "The short issue is with regard to the deemed registration of an ap....