TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....timate expenditure incurred for the purpose the objects of the society. 2. Whether ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that the funds of the society are not applied or used or diverted for the benefit of the person referred to sec. 13(3) in violation of condition laid down u/s 13(1)(c) & 13(2)(c)." 2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 5-3-1998 and under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 on 21-4-1998. The assessee is also registered u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The main objects and the activities of the society are to spread and promote education. The assessee runs various management institutions and colleges. 3. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ec. 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(c) of the Act. However, the ld. A.O did not agree with the submission made by the assessee and made an addition u/s 40A(2) of the Act holding that the assessee has contravened the provisions of sec. 13(1)c) r.w.s. 13(2)(c) of the Act, and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) making a grievance in respect of denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that there was no violation of provisions of sec. 13(1)(c) of the Act in respect of payments to M/s. SBC, where the trustees of the assessee are the partners. After taking into consideration the detailed arguments made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the society; (ii) whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the funds of the society were not applied or used or diverted for the benefit of the persons referred to section 13(3) of the Act in violation of condition laid down u/s 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(c) of the Act. We find that similar issue came up for consideration in assessee‟s own case in ITA No. 710 and 711/PUN/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12, vide order dated 29-6-2017, wherein the revenue had raised similar ground in the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant portion is extracted as under: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in holding that the expenditure on advertisement was a legitimate e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal are distinguishable to that of earlier years. In view of the aforesaid facts and following the same reasoning of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2010-11 is dismissed. 9. As far as appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 is concerned, since both the parties before us have submitted that the facts of the case for the assessment year 2010-11 are identical to the facts of the case for A.Y. 2011-12. We, therefore, for similar reasons stated herein while disposing of the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and for similar reasons, dismiss the appeal of Revenue for A.Y. 2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own case for A.Y. 2008-09, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. From the above, it is evident that the Tribunal granted gave relief to the assessee on the similar issue of applicability of provisions of section 11 r.w.s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. It is undisputed fact that the Advertisement expenditure were always paid by the assessee to the said SBC. In the process, the Tribunal relied on its own order in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 as extracted in Para No.5 of the order of Tribunal. ITA No.2178/PUN/2016 Sri Balaji Society 4 Considering the settled nature of the issue, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable and it doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the firm i.e. SBC was a firm covered under Section 13(3)(e) of the Act visa-a-vis Trust. The Assessing Officer thereafter carried out the analysis of the expenditure in connection with the advertisements with a special focus on the payments made to the said SBC. He denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act relying upon the provisions of Section 13(2)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeals. The CIT(A) examined the material on record at length and came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had incorrectly invoked the said provision in making the dis-allowance. He was of the opinion that the payments were not made in excess of what may be reasonably paid ....