VICHAR TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1705/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 July 20201 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the cases relied upon by the assessee were factually distinguishable. The CIT (E) had not examined the aspect of 'object of General Public Utility'.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, which was denied. The assessee also argued for consideration under 'Advancement of any other object of General Public Utility'.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 and whether its activities qualify for 'Advancement of any other object of General Public Utility'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.Act and was denied exemption u/s.11 of the Act which was under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court. The case of Gujarat State Co-operative Union (cited supra) also is with regard to claim of exemption u/s.10(22) of the Act and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the said case has held as under:

Held, that the assessee was a society for diffusion of a certain branch of knowledge, namely, knowledge of the co-operative movement in various fields governing human life and the activities for the purpose were carried out in an organized and systematic manner by conducting regular courses for imparting instruction and training on various subjects included int eh curricula as was reflected from the list of its activities. The object of running a printing press had to be read in the context of the object of publishing periodicals, books, pamphlets and literature. It was part of the educational activities of the assessee-co-operative union. Having regard to its objects and the nature of its activities, it was an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes. It was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78 . Therefore, there is clear distinction on facts from the case before us. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the assessee are clearly distinguishable and are thus not applicable to the case before us.

12.

As regards the claim of the assessee that it should be considered as carrying on activities of “Advancement of any other object of General Public Utility”, we find that the CIT (E) has not gone into this aspect of the issue at all. It is for the CIT (E) to examine all the aspects of charitable activity claimed by the assessee when the assessee has applied for registration u/s 12A of the Act. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue back to the file of the CIT (E)

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →