TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ising out of assessment order dated 01.11.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. Assessing Officer or in short 'Ld. AO'). 2. The facts in brief are that return of income declaring income of Rs. Nil was filed on 30.09.2015. The assessee company was incorporated on 27.09.1999 under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 as a 'not for profit company'. The assessee is also registered under section 12A vide order dated 10.01.2001. It is an association of broadcasters with the main aim and objectives of protecting the interest of various stakeholders and related entities in the field of television broadcasting, including....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, benefit of exemption of sections 11 and 12 were denied to it and it was assessed as per normal provisions of Income Tax Act as envisaged under Chapter IV of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2.3 Since the benefits of exemption of section 11 & 12 were been denied to the assessee and it was being assessed as per normal provisions of Income Tax Act, depreciation was allowed only on the assets acquired during the year consideration as cost of fixed assets acquired in earlier years had been treated and allowed as application of income in the year of purchase. For the same reason the capital expenditure incurred on account of purchase of fixed assets was not allowed as expense and depreciation thereon was only allowed to the assessee. 2.4 Sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings. 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law. Ld C1T(A) has erred in not appreciating that modes of investment specified in section I 1(5) of the Act do not exclude an investment made on account of government directions. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. Ld. DR submitted that there was no error in the findings of ld Assessing officer and issue has not attained finality. While Ld. AR submitted that in assessee's own case, findings have been given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that amount deposited with BARC is not investment but on account of Government policy and permitted u/s 11(5) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firm, partnership or person promoting or formed or intending to promote any of the objects of Company and to subscribe to or aid any such society, association, company, corporation, firm, partnership or person with a view to obtain any advantage or benefit for the purpose of the Company and to subscribe to any fund or society as may be considered deserving from time to time and to subscribe to, become a member of, corporate or collaborate with any other association or agency whose objects are altogether or in part similar to those of the Company and to procure from or communicate with any such body or association any useful information as is likely to further the objects of the Company. 11. Further, BARC, being a not for profit Company u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account of a Central government policy, can not be ignored. 13. For the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) do not suffer any illegality or irregularity so as to invite any interference by the Tribunal. Since we confirm the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that there was no violation committed by the assessee within the meaning of the provisions under section 11 (5) of the Act read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Act we deem it not necessary to refer to the alternative pleas of the assessee. Consequently, we declined to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A)." 7. This Bench is of the considered opinion that although the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the determi....