COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. NAV MANAV SANSTHAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 879 / 2008HC Delhi06 August 20084 pages
For Petitioner: MR.R.D.JOLLY
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's denial of exemption was perverse to the evidence on record. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer denied exemption under Section 11 based on alleged contravention of Section 13(1), relying on block assessment observations without a definitive finding for the previous year. The CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT upheld the assessee's claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the Assessing Officer was justified based on the evidence and prior year's observations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)

9 % 06.08.2008

Present:

Mr R. D. Jolly with Mr Paras Chaudhary

for the Appellant.

+ CM No. 10222/2008 in ITA 879/2008

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

ITA 879/2008

, N,

This appeal has been preferred against the Tribunal's order dated 12.10.2007 in respect of the assessment year 2002-2003. The Assessing Officer had denied the exemption to the assessee under Section 11 on the purported ground that the provisions of Section 13 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been contravened. However, no definitive finding in respect of the year previous to the assessment year in question had been returned. The Assessing Officer merely relied on certain observations which were made in respect of the block assessment. The finding of the Assessing Officer was overturned by the CIT (Appeals). The said order of the CIT (Appeals) was upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the following conclusion:-

![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg)

perverse to the evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

The appeal is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

Ray in I Labelly RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

August 06, 2008 SR

. .

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →