Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (3) TMI 1288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) dismissing the Revenue's IT(SS)A No.31/CTK/2001 for the Block Assessment Year (BAY) 1st April 1998 to 25th February, 1999. 2. While admitting this appeal on 20th April 2017, this Court framed the following questions of law for consideration: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the learned ITAT was erroneous in law in so far as its finding that there was no material to controvert the conclusion of CIT(A) was perverse, having been arrived at without any evidence and in total disregard, inter alia of the written submission filed by the Department. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the learned ITAT was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rds, what was in fact referred to both by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT (A) as far as the present case is concerned, was Section 10 (22) of the Act and not Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act. The latter provision was mentioned as Section 10(22)/10(23C) (vi) only to indicate that the same provision has been reenacted as Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act with effect from 1st April, 1999. This is not to say that reliance is placed on the re-enacted provisions. Consequently, as far as Question No.(ii) is concerned, the Court finds nothing erroneous in the order of either the CIT (A) or the ITAT. The issue is decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Department. 7. Turning now to Questions (i) and (iii), the background facts are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....India as well as approval from the AICTE. The State Government had also granted its recognition and the Utkal University had granted affiliation to the Institutes of the Trust. (ii) It had received commendation certificates from the Government of India and one of its branches was entrusted with the job of preparing course curriculum and syllabus for the Utkal University keeping in view the infrastructure facilities like R&D and performance of its students in different examinations. (iii) It was factually held that the first two wings of the Assessee-Trust were engaged solely in imparting education and its R&D wing helped in updating its curriculum keeping in view the latest developments in the country and in the world in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Revenue as well as the Assessee. Apart from the fact that the issue involves pure questions of fact, the Court finds that no serious legal infirmities have been pointed out in the order either of the CIT (A) or the ITAT. 13. Mr. Chimanka placed reliance on certain observations of this Court in its judgment dated 24th November 2011 in W.P.(C) No.2467 of 2011 (Xavier's Institute of Management v. State of Orissa). The challenge in that petition was to an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar (CCIT) refusing approval to the Institution under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and the subsequent order of the CCIT under Section 154 of the Act. Apart from the fact that the present case does not involve grant of approv....