TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Act 1961 [hereinafter referred as 'the Act']. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld CIT(Exemption) the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds:- 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax - Exemption (CIT) erred in law, contrary to and based on incorrect interpretation of the facts in passing an order u/s. 263 though the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and in directing the assessing officer to frame the assessment afresh. Thus, the order passed u/s. 263 has been passed without fulfilling the conditions laid down by law and deserves to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT has erred both on the facts and in law in ignorin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....treating grant money received as voluntary contributions completely ignoring the stated position of law that grant money being involuntary funds to be utilized as per specific conditions and stipulations as laid down by the donor cannot be treated as Income in the hands of the done. Thus, this issue cannot be considered for the purpose of Section 263 and the order passed under Section 263 should be cancelled. 3. The brief case of the assessee is that assessee a trust registered under Section 12A of the Act, has filed its return of income declaring income nil claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The return of income filed by assessee was scrutinized u/s. 143(3) of the Act and accepted. The case was selected for limited scrutiny....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny and the AO had no power to discuss the issue in the assessment proceedings. Ld CIT(Exemption) has no jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In the support of the contention the assessee has filed the paper book containing page (1-104). 6. The Ld AR has stated that the Ld CIT (exemption) could not direct the AO for further enquiry and give his findings. Reliance has placed on the following decisions; ITO vs Housing Projects Ltd (2012)343 ITR 329 (Del) CIT vs Sandeep Kumar Aggarwal ITA 750/2018 (Del-HC) CIT vs Kohinoor Foods Ltd ITA 757/2005 (Del-HC) 7. The AR has placed reliance upon the following judicial decisions:- 1. Mohak Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. PCIT, ITA 1069/Del/2021 dated 25.05.2023 2. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. On this issue, by not verifying or inquiring into the reasonableness of the rent recovered from these specified persons which should have been done, the impugned order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. Coming to the second issue of not admitting the foreign contribution as income in the income & Expenditure A/c, TNAI had received the following foreign contributions during the relevant assessment year. S.No Date of receipt Details Amount (Rs.) 1 04.05.2016 Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc 16,99,560 2 28.02.2017 Centre for Catalyzing change 4,84,000 It was submitted by the assessee that grant of USD 25,600 was received from Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015, which is now estimated at 6 months from the date of final approvals. The formal agreement was entered into on 09.04.2016 and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc made the payment on 04.05.2016. Since the period of study was only 6 months, it has to be completed before March, 2017. Nowhere in the agreement it is mentioned as a tied up grant or as a corpus donation. 9. The Ld DR has submitted that the Ld CIT(Exemption) has given the reasons in the order how the prejudice has been caused to the revenue. The AO has not made the adequate enquiry. 10. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on the record. 11. In the case of Malabar Co. Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) held as under :- It has been observed by the ....