RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263. The primary basis for the PCIT's revisionary action was the alleged erroneous allowance of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 due to salary payments to specified persons, drawing parallels with the assessment of AY 2017-18. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessment in AY 2017-18 was based on a survey conducted under Section 133A during the demonetization period, and the irregularities found pertained specifically to that period. Crucially, there was no such survey or adverse findings in the assessment year 2018-19. The AO in the current year had called for and examined specific details regarding salary payments and other information before accepting the returned income. The Tribunal found that the AO had taken a plausible view based on the facts and circumstances of the current year, which was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's reliance on the earlier year's assessment, without considering the absence of similar adverse material in the current year, was deemed incorrect. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of depreciation rectification mentioned by the assessee as it was not the primary ground for appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Rawat Bal Vidha Niketan Samiti, filed its return for AY 2018-19 declaring NIL income, claiming exemption under Section 11. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) on April 21, 2021, accepting the returned income. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated proceedings under Section 263, alleging the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's concern stemmed from the assessment of the preceding year (AY 2017-18), where exemption under Sections 11 and 12 was withdrawn due to alleged violations of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), particularly concerning salary payments to specified persons. The PCIT believed the AO in the current year overlooked these findings and allowed exemption despite similar transactions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the PCIT erred in passing a revision order under Section 263, holding the AO's order dated April 21, 2021, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, when the AO's order was detailed and well-considered? 2. Whether the PCIT erred in holding the AO's order as erroneous based on the assessment of an earlier assessment year (2017-18) where additions were made on estimation, and whether such estimation can form the basis for revision under Section 263? 3. Whether the PCIT erred in passing the revisionary order under Section 263, given that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue? 4. Whether the PCIT erred in holding the AO's order as erroneous and prejudicial on the grounds that exemption under Sections 11 and 12 was withdrawn in earlier years by disallowing salary to specified persons, when the AO in the current year examined specific details and took a view? Assessee's Contentions: - The AO's order was detailed and well-considered, and the revisionary action under Section 263 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. - The PCIT erred in basing the revision on estimations made in the earlier year, as estimation is a possible view and revision is not warranted on such grounds. - The AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, making the PCIT's order without jurisdiction. - The AO examined specific details regarding salary payments to specified and non-specified persons and took a view, which should not be considered erroneous or prejudicial without new material. - The assessment in the earlier year was based on a survey under Section 133A during the demonetization period, and the findings pertained only to that period. There were no similar findings or surveys in the current year, thus the AO's view in the current year should be different and not subject to revision under Section 263. - The PCIT erred in holding that the AO failed to ascertain disallowance of salary and examine eligibility for exemption, as the AO had taken a plausible view. Revenue's Contentions: - The PCIT observed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the assessee trust had violated provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the IT Act, 1961, by paying excessive salaries to specified persons. The PCIT noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year were similar to the preceding year, and there was no case for allowing the benefit of Section 11. The AO appeared to have overlooked the findings in AY 2017-18.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 11,Section 12,Section 13(1)(c),Section 13(1)(d),Section 13(3),Section 133A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. No. 537/JPR/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawat Bal Vidha Niketan Samiti 348-349, Vivek Vihar New Sanganer Road Jaipur – 302 019 Vs. बनाम The Pr. CIT (Central) Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABTR 1522 K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Anoop Bhata CA & Prerna Sharma, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Ajay Malik, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 04/10/2023 उदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 02/01/2024 PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. PCIT (Central), Jaipur dated 01-08-2023 for the assessment year 2018-19 in the matter of Section 263 of the Act wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. “1. On facts and in the circumstance of the matter Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in passing the revision order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"), on the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) by alleging the same as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Appellant prays that the order of the AO being detailed and well-considered, the revisionary action of Ld. PCIT deserves to be held bad-in law and the order passed u/s 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed.
That the Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in holding the order of the AO as erroneous on the basis of assessment made in earlier AY (2017-18) without considering the fact that the additions in the earlier year were made on estimation. Appellant prays that estimation is always a basis of opinion and one of the possible views, revision action under section 263 is bad in law if addition needs to be made on the basis of an estimation or one of the possible views.
That Ld. PCIT has further erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act. Appellant prays that the order of AO neither being erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, hence the order of Ld. PCIT being without juri iction deserves to be quashed.
That Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in holding the order of AO as erroneous and prejudicial on the grounds that in earlier years exemption u/s 11 and 12 was withdrawn, by disallowing salary to specified persons and the same was being fully allowed in the relevant year. Appellant prays that specific details relating to salary paid to both specified and non-specified persons were duly called for and examined and based on same a view was taken by the AO. Holding such view as erroneous and prejudicial without bringing any new material on record, being outside the purview of sec 263, the order passed deserves to be quashed."
1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust e-filed its return of income for the previous year 2017-18 relevant to assessment year 2018-19 on 31-10-2018 declaring an income of Rs. NIL. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited Scrutiny" u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on the basis of Computer Assisted Selection for Scrutiny (CASS) and statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22-09-2019 was issued through ITBA and duly served upon the assessee. The information/s 142(1) of the Act was called for vide questionnaire through ITBA. Incompliance of the said notices, the assessee submitted details / information through e-proceedings and the information so filed by the assessee was examined by the AO. The AO while assessment proceedings noted that the assessee trust is engaged in education Sector wherein the following institutions are run by the Rawat Bal Vidhya Niketan Samiti. S.N. Name of the institution Address
Rawat Public School, PratapNagar Sector-17, Pratap Nagar, Raipur
Rawat Sr. Secondary School, Vivek Vihar 348-349, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road,
Rawat Public School, Mansarovar 366, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Raipur
Rawat Mahila P.G. College Kami Vihar, Hirapura, Ajmer Road, Raipur
Rawat B.Ed College -do-
Rawat Nursingh College -do- It is noted that the AO vide his assessment order dated 21-04-2021 accepted the assessee's returned income by observing as under:- “4. After examination of the information and other details, the returned income of the assessee trust is accepted." The total income is assessed at income of Rs. Nil u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ITNS-150 showing calculation of tax and interest chargeable, if any, is attached herewith forming a part of this order."
2 The ld. PCIT on examination of the details/ record available before him observed that the assessment order passed on 21-04-2021 by the AO appears to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set aside the same with direction to make afresh assessment order on the point of salaries paid to specified persons as being excessive based on the order of earlier year. The relevant observations as made by the ld. PCIT in his order are mentioned as under:
“5. I have studied the issue at hand alongwith the assessment records and the submissions of the assessee. The Counsel has been duly heard.
The taxpayer (through Counsel) has pleaded, among other things, that on grounds of consistency an adverse view cannot be taken in this year particularly when revenue has been holding that the taxpayer is eligible for grant of exemption as per provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 7. The taxpayer also pleaded that there was no need or no occasion or no necessity for triggering the said disallowance in this year. The petitioner also pointed out that the disallowance was specific to findings of that year. Since there were no findings in this year, therefore, the AO did not need to make any disallowance and therefore no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to revenue. The assessing officer, pleads the assessee, has proceeded to make this disallowance on the basis of view arrived at by him on the basis of facts of earlier year which too are contested in appeal and not final. The taxpayer, through counsel, pleaded that there was no positive evidence specific to this year which could have led to disallowance. Thus, pleaded the petitioner that the hypothesis of loss having been caused to revenue is merely an allegation which remains unsubstantiated. As such, the taxpayer (that is the assessee or the petitioner) has propositioned that the disallowance in the earlier year was a view taken by the assessing officer in that year. The view to be taken in this year needs to be a different view and therefore as per law laid down in the case of Malabar by Honorable Supreme Court 243 ITR 83, an adverse view cannot be taken in this year.
The petitioner (or assessee or taxpayer) has also pointed out that some of the additions have also been made in the hands of one of the trustees. Thereby, the taxpayer has propositioned that there are double additions and that revenue itself is not sure as to in what hand such an addition is to be made. According to the taxpayer, these common items did not belong to income of the society, which is this assessee. The taxpayer has also propositioned that the society is actually involved in the activity of education being running of the school which is a fact that cannot be denied and is a ground reality
Further, the taxpayer has pleaded that merely a percentage disallowance on account of salary payments without any strong basis being there is not appropriate. The taxpayer also submits that this was the primary basis of disallowance of exemption and that in this year there is no such basis for "disallowance. Even the disallowance in the earlier year is not final and is disputed. 10 In this connection I am of the view that Revenue had, on the basis of inquiries made an evidence available in the earlier assessment year, disallowed the exemption given to the assessee society. Further, the triggering factor were, the salary payments that were disallowed relating to the specified persons. The additions made in the earlier year were the surplus of income over expenditure as well as addition on account of disallowance of salary paid to specified persons
The taxpayer has also pleaded vehemently that the show cause notice speaks of additions/ disallowance of exemption, to be made on a basis similar to assessment year 2017-18. In this connection, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel that the assessment order for AY 2017-18 was based on survey carried out under section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961 relating to the post Demonetization period, that is in March 2017. The irregularities found (without prejudice) pertain to that period only and cannot be a basis for taking action in this year particularly when no evidence thereof was available with the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2018-19. Furthermore, pleads the taxpayer, that proceedings under section 263 cannot be made to uncover evidence on a supposed / hypothetical basis, particularly when the information that was available was specific and additions to be made in this year will be merely based, if at all, on the basis of projection in future/ estimation. This kind of approach is not acceptable in the courts of law, pleads the assessee.
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.”
3 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for “Limited scrutiny” on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for “Limited scrutiny” on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan principal/head of any of the Colleges run by the trust, to whom salary of Rs section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. They may at the most have been reasonably paid @ total salary of Rs.49,66,800/-. As such, there is excess payment of Rs. 27,46,800/- .All these 5 persons are specified persons within the meaning of u/s 13(3) of the of salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.
cannot be considered for charity. c. In the AY 2018-19, total salary claim is of Rs.
was disallowed. On the same analogy 58% of the salary of the current year i.eRs charity in absence of clear details of payee and purpose of expenditure.
Furthermore, depreciation of Rs. 8708189/- has been claimed for the year under commercial expediency.
The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified persons to whom such amounts were given.
In view of above, it was a case of a trust where substantial expenses were not for charitable purpose and the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)"
It is noted that the assessing officer has failed to take note the trust has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the similar to the preceding year.
this year is absent The survey had been carried out in an earlier view cannot be applicable in this year to reopen the case under section 263. The taxpayer pleaded that there is no survey in this year and no action by the assessing officer.
This failure on part of the assessing officer to primarily prejudice to the interest of revenue from this erroneous action. logically
Furthermore, it is noted that the taxpayer had incorrectly depreciation may not be taken by the assessing officer
Summing up, the assessing officer is directed to examine the eligibility of salary payments on the basis as in the earlier year, the parameters as above.” During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld.
as under:- was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring NIL income by claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The case of the assessee was taken up for "Limited scrutiny" on the basis of CASS for examining the 'expenditure for charitable and religious purposes'.
u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2021 accepting the returned income.
issued on 01.08.2023. The points considered in the notice were as under:-
It has been noted that as per information available on record, assessment of scrutiny u/s 143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019. 6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based assessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13 of the Act.
It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are while accepting the claim of theassessee.
The facts in the current year also indicate a clear violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act read with section 13(2)(c) and section dated 15.2.2021,the trust has paid salary of Rs. 15,18,000/- to ShBachan SinghRawat, Rs, 12,40,800/- to SmtNirmalaRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to NarendraRawat, Rs. 7,59,000/- to HemendraRawat and Rs, 6,90,000/- to Arpan specified/
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
