TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in allowing exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act, 1961 to the assessee without appreciating the fact that AO has given detailed reason in assessment order to establish that activities of the assessee are not charitable in view of amended provisions of section 2(15) of the I.T.Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the ITAT was justified in law in not considering that intent for carrying out activities is not relevant if activities are commercial in nature despite the fact that in this case assessee has been selling/preparing ladoos/Prasad etc for which charges are taken from devotees? (iii) Whether the ITAT was justified in law in allowing exemptions u/s 11 of the I.T.Act, 1961 to the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee from one Pawansut Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. which was a specified person under Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). According to revenue this transaction would be covered within the mischief of Section 13(2)(g) of the Act. Remaining questions would not require elaborate reference or reasons for not accepting since essentially they are pure questions of facts duly considered by the Tribunal. 3. Coming to the sole surviving issue of purchases made by the assessee from the related person, brief facts are that respondentassessee is a trust registered under Section 12AA of the Act and had claimed exemption under the Act for assessment year 2012- 13. The return filed by the assessee-trust was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y were same as with unrelated party. Further, there were no findings in the assessment order on the basis of which additions were made except that purchases have been made from the related party. The appellant has also proved that such purchases were made at the same rate as paid to unrelated party. 5. The department carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the view of CIT (Appeals) observing that assessing officer has not come to the conclusion that purchases made from the related party were on payment of excess amount. There was no allegation that assessee had paid higher price to the related party as compared to the unrelated party. It was observed that merely because a transaction is done with the rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case may be, the aggregate of the income and the value of the property, so diverted does not exceed one thousand rupees;" 7. Clause (g) would be applicable in a case where any income or property of a trust or institution is diverted during previous year in favour of any person referred to in sub-section (3). Subsection (3) in turn relates to persons or institutions which are closely related such as the author of the trust or the founder of the institution, any trustee of the trust or manager of the institution etc. It is not in dispute that the assessee and the M/s Pawansut Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. are entities covered under sub-section (3) of Section 13. However the question is merely because such sale and purchase transaction took p....