1981 (1) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax assessment order of the assessee for the year under consideration, where the value of these shares have been added to his "net wealth", being a part of his business assets. Even otherwise, there is no dispute in this behalf. In the year, the assessee donated these shares to M/s. Murlidhar Sohanlal Foundation Society, Kanpur, a charitable trust. The claim of the assessee in regard to the deduction of Rs. 23,584 u/s 80G in respect of the said shares transferred to the said Society was negatived by the ITO on the ground that the income of the said society was not exempt u/s 11 & 12 of the Act, one of the conditions pre-requisite for the allowance of deduction u/s 80G of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said disallowance, the assessee brough....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) 139 : (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj). Dr. Vaish also urged that the Expln. 5 to s. 80G was not attracted in the present case, because that Explanation was effective from the accounting period relevant to the asst. yr. 1976-77 and the year in the present appeal is asst. yr. 1974-75. Even otherwise, according to Dr. Vaish, in view of various arguments advanced by him at the hearing, the Expln. 5 was not attracted in the present case. 5. In reply the Deptl. Rep. urged that in Associated Cement Co.'s case, the High Court had given a finding that what the assessee handed over to the University of Bombay (Department of Chemical Technology) was the aggregate amount of Rs. 6,600 and it was because of this finding that the claim for deduction u/s ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in CIT vs. Traub (India) P. Ltd., which are self-explanatory; " With respect to the learned judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which constituted the Division Bench, it would appear to us that it was not the Tribunal or the person who prepared the headnote who had misread the decision of the Bombay High Court in Associated Cement Company's case (1968) 68 ITR 478 (Bom), but the learned judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In associated Cement Company's case (1968) 68 ITR 478 (Bom) the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had expressly observed at a number of places in the judgment and found that the assessee had spent Rs. 6,600 out of its own coffers, prepared the kiln and then handed over the kiln to the university pursuant ....