2025 (7) TMI 1792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee's sole substantive ground challenging both the learned lower authorities' action disallowing its section 11 exemption claim, the tribunal's attention is invited at the outset to the learned lower authorities' discussion reading as under: "5.1 The main contention of the appellant is that the addition of Rs. 18,44,782/- made by the CPC is not justified because the amount accumulated in AY 2017-18 was applied in AY 2023-24, which according to the appellant is within the permissible time limit as per section 11(3)(c) of the Act before its amendment by Finance Act, 2022. 5.2 Section 11(2) of the Act allows a charitable or religious trust to accumulate income for a m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3-24 and is prospective in nature. The appellant's case falls within AY 2023-24, and hence the amended provision is correctly applicable. The law as it stands on the first day of the assessment year is applicable for determining the tax liability for that assessment year. This is a well-established principle, upheld by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments, including CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC). 5.6 The appellant's reliance on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore in the case of M/s Phulchand Gulabchand Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 is not relevant as the facts and applicable law in that case were different. Similarly, the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the parties regarding the basic relevant facts. The assessee had admittedly set apart the impugned accumulation right from assessment year 2017-18 onwards; and, at that time, till the statutory amendment in section 11(3)(c) vide Finance Act, 2022 applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2023, it ought to have applied the same within five years followed by a grace period of further one year; as the case may be. This prescribed time span has admittedly continued upto the impugned assessment year 2023-24. The Revenue's case in this factual backdrop is that given the fact that the assessee is admittedly hit by the above statutory amendment, both the learned authorities have rightly rejected its exemption claim. 4. That being the case, tribunal finds no mer....