ITO(E), JAIPUR vs. OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 967/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 February 2017AY 2008-094 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that similar grounds were raised in previous appeals by the revenue, which were dismissed by a Coordinate Bench. Following the consistent view, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11. The revenue argued that provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) were attracted due to investment in shares and also questioned depreciation claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee trust violated Section 13(1)(d)(iii) by investing in shares, and whether depreciation claims were allowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13(1)(d)(iii),Section 11(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M.

This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-III,

Jaipur dated 12.08.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has

raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“ On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) has erred in :- 1. Allowing assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 even though provisions of sec. 13(1)(d)(iii) are attracted. 2. Treating the surplus of Rs. 43,95,014/- as exempt income in spite of the fact that assessee trust was assessed as AOP and invested the trust money in shares which is not an eligible asset within the meaning of provisions of section 11(5) as such it attracts provisions of section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the I.T. Act.

2 ITA No. 967/JP/2016 M/s. Om Kothari Foundation

3.

Allowing claim of depreciation of Rs. 15, 31,763/- on fixed assets in spite of the fact that the same was allowed as application of income u/s 11 at the time of purchase.

4.

Allowing depreciation without appreciating the fact that the application of 100% expenditure of the capital asset is already allowed as capital expenditure hence further allowance of the depreciation on the same capital asset would amount to double allowance.

5.

Allowing depreciation without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not carried out the business activities but the receipts utilized for charity. As there was no business activity the claim of depreciation was not allowable, the depreciation is allowable only in the case of business or profession or in the case of ‘income from other sources.’

6.

Deleting the addition made on account of donation of Rs. 14,19,900/- in spite of the f act that the assessee trust has lost its exemption by violating the provisions of section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act.

B. Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed before the Hon’ble Tribunal in the interest of justice.”

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. An application dated 23.02.2017

has been sent seeking adjournment. It is also stated that the issue is covered by the

decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 383 & 384/JP/2016

pertaining to assessment years 2006-07 & 07-08 dated 28.09.2016.

3.

On the contrary, the ld. D/R opposed the submission made in the written

brief.

4.

The request for adjournment is rejected. We find that similar grounds were

raised in the revenue’s appeal in ITA Nos. 383 & 384/JP/2016 and the Coordinate

Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 28.09.2016 has rejected the grounds of the

revenue thereby dismissing the appeals of the revenue. Taking a consistent view, we

3 ITA No. 967/JP/2016 M/s. Om Kothari Foundation

see no reason to interfere into the order of the ld. CIT (A), which is hereby upheld.

The grounds of the revenue are rejected.

5.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/02/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn] ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) (BHAG CHAND ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 27/02/2017. d/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- The ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – M/s. Om Kothari Foundations, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 967/JP/2016) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

4 ITA No. 967/JP/2016 M/s. Om Kothari Foundation

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →