Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA No.753 OF 2009 (IT)
BETWEEN :
The Director of Income Tax Exemptions, C.R.Building Queens Road, Bangalore.
… Appellant
(By Sri K V Aravind and Sri E.I.Sanmathi, Advs.)
AND:
Envisions No.203, Camelot Kensington Road Ulsoor, Bangalore-560042.
… Respondent
(By Sri A Shankar and Sri M Lava, Advs.)
2 This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of the I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order passed in ITA No.23/BNG/2009 dated 26-06-2009, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein,
(ii) allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.23/BNG/2009 dated 26-06-2009 confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Director of Income Tax, Exemptions, Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity.
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, VINEET SARAN, J. delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.,K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.
This appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law:
3 Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to renewal recognition u/s. 80G of the Act even though no charitable activity is carried on by the assessee during the current assessment year as the permission for accumulation u/s.11(2) of the Act does not specify the object for such accumulation and not complying with Section 11(5) of the Act?
Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the issue involved in this appeal is similar to the one involved in ITA No.752/2009 (DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) v/s. ENVISIONS) decided on 13-03-2015 wherein the issue in question has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Accordingly, for the reasons given in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 13-03-2015, we dismiss this appeal and answer the substantial question of law in
4 favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
mpk/-*