DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. DHARAMSHILA CANCER FOUNDATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 894 / 2010HC Delhi19 July 20102 pages
For Petitioner: PL BANSAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a similar appeal by the Revenue for an earlier assessment year, on the same grounds, was dismissed by the Court. Therefore, the issue was no longer open for debate.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order allowing the assessee to claim deductions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue argued that the assessee's hospital was run on commercial lines with a profit motive, thus not qualifying as a charitable institution.

What were the issues?

Whether a hospital run on commercial lines with a profit motive can claim deductions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

#11 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 894/2010

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

..... Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate

versus

DHARAMSHILA CANCER FOUNDATION AND RESEARCH CENRE

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate

Date of Decision: 19th July, 2010

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)

1.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “Act, 1961”) challenging the order dated 14th May, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “ITAT”) in ITA No. 1223/Del/2008, for the assessment year 2005- 2006. 2. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short 2010:DHC:3546-DB

“Commissioner”) and ITAT had erred in law in directing the assessing officer to allow the assessee to avail the deductions under Sections 11 and 12 of Act, 1961. According to Ms. Bansal, the assessee was not a charitable institution as its hospital was being run on commercial lines for profit motive. 3. Upon perusal of the paper book, we find that the ITAT while passing the impugned order has relied upon its own earlier order dated 27th March, 2009 passed with regard to the same assessee for the assessment year 2002-2003. It is pertinent to mention that an appeal being ITA No. 1416/2009 against the said order under Section 260A of Act, 1961 on the same grounds as urged in the present appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11th January, 2010 after holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 4. Keeping in view the order dated 27th March, 2009 passed by the ITAT as well as the order dated 11th January, 2010 passed by this Court, we are of the opinion that the issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra. 5. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed in limine.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 19, 2010 rn 2010:DHC:3546-DB

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →