TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,22,76,205/- made by AO on account of denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in allowing depreciation of Rs. 2,83,16,001/-." 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : M/s. G.R. Goenka Education Society (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee society') being a society registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') with main object to run education institution in order to provide education upto higher secondary standard, it runs a school in the name of G.D. Goenka Public School at Vasant Kunj in Delhi. Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at assessee society even does not maintain the depreciation reserve fund which is a prerequisite for collection of development fee; that ld. CIT (A) has ignored the facts that assessee society was engaged in the activities which were commercial in nature and against the public policy. 6. However, on the other hand, to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. DR for the Revenue, ld. AR for the assessee society relying upon the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) contended inter alia that the issue in controversy has been consistently decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee society since AY 2009-10 in ITA No.3572/Del/2013 order dated 02.02.2017, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has failed to point out any distinguishing facts in the year under assessment vis-à-vis the earlier years decided in favour of the assessee nor it is the case of the Revenue that order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been overturned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. So far as question of using the trademark 'G.D. Goenka" having goodwill and monetary value of the trademark which has been built up in the course of the assessee society's activities is concerned, this issue has already been examined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in assessee's own case vide order dated 30.10.2017 (supra) by returning following findings :- "4. The other ground urged was that the goodwill and monetary value of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. Single Judge and PERMITTED Goenka Institute of Education and research to use the name "Goenka Pubic School" with respect to the schools during pendency of the suit subject to directions in para 28 of said judgment. 13. On specific queries from the bench neither the Ld. AR nor the Ld DR could assist the Tribunal about the final decision in this case of Trade Mark dispute between the Goenka Institute of Education and Research and Shri Anjani Kumar Goenka (A. K. Goenka) thus we safely presume that the final verdicts in this case is stilt awaited and in absence of any other final verdict, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in holding that Mr. A.K. Goenka is the owner of the Trade Mark "G.D. Goenka" and thus there is no violation of section 13(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gation of profit motive cannot be alleged against the assessee for denying benefit of exemption of section 11 of the Act. 15. At this Juncture, we may also point out that the CBDT Circular No.11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 has manifested that the relief of the poor education and medical relief will not be hit by the newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. We, therefore. are of the opinion that on the above noted factual matrix of the extant case regarding financial activities and application of income/funds by the assessee we decline to accept contention of the AO that the activities of the assessee are commercial in nature and with profit motive. Our above noted conclusion also gets strong support from the decisions of Hon'ble....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gives strong support to the claim of the assessee. 16. On the basis of foregoing discussion we reach to the logical conclusion that the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act by the AO was merely based on the wrong and incorrect appreciation of facts thus the same was rightly demolished by the CIT (A). The first appellate authority granted relief to the assessee by taking into consideration right aspects of the case and which is also supported by ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and CBDT Circular No.11/2008 (supra). We are unable to see any ambiguity or perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 4 of the appellant-Revenue being devoid of merits are dismissed." 10. In....