1982 (4) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee, the Commissioner was of the opinion that deducting from this amount of Rs. 3,52,950 (i) the income deemed to have been applied under section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), and (ii) the cost of shares, there was still a surplus of Rs. 1,39,325 which should have been taxed as income 'not applied'. The Commissioner furnished the details of this computation to the assessee and called upon the assessee to show cause why this item should not be subjected to tax under section 263 of the Act. After considering the objections on behalf of the assessee, the Commissioner set aside the assessment, observing that the ITO had erroneously taxed only an amount of Rs. 1,790 instead of the amount of Rs. 1,39,325 as stated above. He ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mitted in section 11(1A). On behalf of the revenue, our attention is invited to the provisions of section 11(2), according to which the assessee had an option of having so much of the income applied to such purposes in India during the previous year, immediately following the previous year in which the income was derived as did not exceed the said amount of 75 per cent of the income. The assessee could exercise the option within the time availing for filing the return of income for the year under consideration. Having failed to file this option, the Commissioner was fully justified in treating the income from the capital gains not applied for the purposes of the trust, as liable to tax. 4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case....