TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....justified in allowing the assessee appeal despite the fact that there is violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the I.T. Act because of the investment by the Trust in prohibited mode of investment that it would lead?" 2. Whether, 1 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the assessee appeal despite the fact that assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under section 10(34/35/38) because section 10(34/35/38) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. Clearly in this case, section 164(2) is attracted" 2."3. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" 3. The assessee is a Charitable Trust registered under Section (u/s.) 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). In the return of income filed by the assessee for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so-called investment in shares is nothing but accretion of bonus shares, hence, not hit by the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned First Appellate Authority. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of our decision, the application filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, (1963) having become infructuous is not entertained. ITA No. 2484/Mum/2025 (Revenue's appeal) A.Y. 2010-11 7. Grounds raised in the appeal are identical to ITA No. 2483/Mum/2025 decided in the earlier part of the order. Decision taken therein by us will apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Hence, appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 2485/Mum/2012 (Revenue's appeal) A.Y. 2013-14 8. Grounds raised in the appeal are identical to ITA No. 2483/Mum/2025 decided in the earlier part of this order. Decision taken therein by us will apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Hence, appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 2486/Mum/2025 (Revenue's appeal) A.Y. 2014-15 9. Grounds raised in the appeal are identical to ITA No. 2483/Mum/2025 decided in the earlier part of this order.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. Hence, has not claimed any exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The AO, however, did not accept the claim of the assessee. He observed, since the assessee was granted registration u/s. 12A of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, he is the competent authority, who can cancel the registration. Assessee cannot suo motu surrender the registration granted u/s. 12A of the Act. On such reasoning, the AO disallowed assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. Having held so, he did not even grant exemption u/s. 11 of the Act alleging violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Against such decision of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. While deciding the appeal, learned First Appellate Authority observed that though the assessee had surrendered its registration u/s. 12A of the Act, however, PCIT had cancelled the registration vide order dated 31.10.2019. He further observed that while deciding the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal has held that the cancellation of registration u/s. 12A of the Act shall take affect from 20.03.2015. Accordingly, the First Appellate Authority observed that since assessee's registration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tration obtained in a period prior to the insertion of section 12AA. The present cancellation of registration under section 12A must, therefore, be held to be effective from 20th March 2015. To this limited extent, we uphold the plea of the assessee. 69. We have noted that many other peripheral issues, with regard to the conduct of the assessee trust and compliance with the statutory provisions under section 11 to 13, are raised in the course of the impugned proceedings. In our humble understanding, there is no need to deal with these aspects so far as our adjudication, on the core issue requiring our adjudication in this appeal, is concerned. All these issues so raised by the revenue authorities are left open for adjudication at the appropriate stage such as in the assessment, or any other related, proceedings, if and so necessary. Our observations hereinabove have no bearing, or should be construed as having any bearing, on these issues. 70. The admission of additional ground of appeal is also an academic issue in the light of the above conclusions arrived by us, and there is no need to deal with that aspect of the matter either. As we have decided this appeal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80G at Rs. 16,93,07,443/- and u/s 80GGA Rs. 29,79,92,156/-. These deductions were claimed in the computation of income by the assessee but in the return of income, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80G of the Act only for which the assessee furnished necessary proof. However, as per the provisions of Section 80G(4), the donation made in excess of credits of sums in respect of deduction has to be allowed u/s 80G of the Act. As mentioned hereinabove, in the computation the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act but in the return of income, only deduction u/s 80G of the Act was claimed. The AO accordingly rejected the claim of deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act. 6. When the matter was agitated before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that since there is no column in the return in ITR-V for claiming deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act, therefore such deduction could not be claimed by the assessee due to this technical reason and accordingly directed the AO to allow the claim subject to his satisfaction of other conditions laid down in this regard. 7. We find that similar difficulty ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, we allow assessee's claim u/s. 80G and 80GGA of the Act. Hence, grounds are allowed. 18.1 In the result, appeal is party allowed. ITA No. 3441-3442/Mum/2025 (Revenue's appeal) A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 19. Grounds raised in both these appeals are common except variance in figure. Hence, for the sake of brevity, grounds for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced hereunder: "1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in treating the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP) instead of a Charitable Trust for A.Y. 2016-17, despite the fact that the registration u/s 12A had not been cancelled by the Competent Authority, and remained in force during the relevant period. " 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in allowing deduction u/s 80GGA of Rs. 1,45,21,000/-, ignoring the fact that the assessee had not claimed such deduction in the return of income and the claim was raised for the first time during appellate proceedings. No revised return was filed and hence such a claim is not admissible under the law". 3. "Whether, on....