2024 (3) TMI 1306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of learned CIT (A), NFAC partly sustaining the order of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in law and on facts and is liable to be set- aside. 2. That the learned CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in only partly allowing the claim made u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 110,94,73,718/- as against Rs. 120,00,33,672/-claimed in ITR form. 3. That the learned CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in not giving the benefit of balance claim of Rs. 9,05,58,182/- on account of non- accumulation of funds u/s 11(5) of the Act, though evidences were furnished with the learned CIT(A). 4. That order passed by learned CIT (A), NFAC is against the principles of natural justice as no clarific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntimation u/s 143(1) dated 14/12/2022, the CPC, Bengaluru had given less credit of TDS by Rs. 72,55,653/- and accordingly. refund of Rs. 95,95.528/- had been determined as against refund of Rs. 1.68,51,181/- claimed in ITR. In response to above said intimation issued u/s 143(1), a rectification application u/s 154 was e-filed by the appellant on 20/12/2022 stating "Correction of details of Pre-paid Taxes". Thereafter, an order was passed u/s 154 of the IT Act by CPC, Bangalore dated 12/01/2023 wherein CPC had not given the credit of balance TDS but this time demand was raised for Rs. 64,47,35,040/- on account of disallowing the claim made u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,33,672/-. 1.3. Against the abov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this regard, it is seen that the appellant is stating that the resolution is passed for accumulation of Rs. 135,00,00,000/- whereas required accumulation is only Rs. 120,00,33672/-. In this respect, the figures are verified and calculation for required accumulation is as under:- Receipts for the year less of corpus donations -150,87,77,329 Less:- 15% allowed without application -22,63,16,600 Remaining 85% to be applied -128,24,60,729 Less Actually applied for purposes of the trust -8,24,28,829 Remaining to be accumulated u/s 11(2) -(to claim deduction) -120,00,31,900 Therefore, there is merit in the appellant's contention that the Rs. 135,00,00,000/- not necessary to be accumulated. 4.3.5.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Since the appellant has accumulated Rs. 110,94,73,718/- in the modes specified u/s 11(5) as evidenced, which is lower than the amount of Rs. 120,00,31,900/- required as per the section 11(2), the deduction u/s 11(2) is allowable only on the amount of Rs. 110,94,73,718/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 9,05,58,182/- (120,00,31,900 - 110,94,73,718) is not eligible for deduction being more than the allowable 15% and not accumulated into the specified modes u/s 11(5). The AO is directed to restrict the said addition to Rs. 9,05,58,182/-." 6. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's claim under section 11(2) of the Act amounting to Rs. 110,94,73,718/- as against Rs. 120,00,33,672/- claimed in the return. It is against the den....