Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
ITA NO. 711 / 2009
BETWEEN
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
C R BUILDING, ATTAVARA
MANGALORE
2 THE ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING
ATTAVARA, MANGALORE ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K V ARAVIND & E I SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND
ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION ® NITHYANANDA NAGAR, DERALAKATTE MANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.PARTHASARATHI, SMT. JINITA CHATTERJI & SRI V.K.GURUNATHAN, ADVs.)
THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 12.6.2009 IN ITA
1395/BANG/2008 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – I, BANGALORE.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.Parthasarthi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
This appeal has been ADMITTED on the following questions of law:
“1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the assessee was to be treated in the status of Trust as the assessee had been granted registration u/s.12AA of the Act without appreciating that the assessee has contravened the provisions of Section 11(5) r.w.s.s. 13(d)(i) and 13(2)(h) of the Act and
therefore not exempted u/s.11 of the Act and should be treated as AOP and permitting carry forward of depreciation loss as held by the Assessing Officer?
Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that a sum of Rs.1,95,64,581/- treated as the income of the assessee as unaccounted donations (Rs.60,00,000/-), corpus donations (Rs.1,35,00,000/-) charity and donations (Rs.60,000/-) disallowance (Rs.4,581/-) u/s.43B of the Act, after allowing depreciation and expenditure after deducting admitted income worked out the depreciation loss to be carried forward of Rs.1,63,46,340/- by the Assessing Officer was liable to be set aside?”
Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the first question involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- M/s.Islamic Academy of Education in ITA No.805/2008 decided on 09.09.2014.
For the reasons given in the aforesaid judgment, the first question of law is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that in the facts of the case, the second question of law, as has been framed, would not arise from the order of the Tribunal and as such the same need not be answered.
The appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE