THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

PDF · subscribers
OLR/15/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01040111201813 July 2018Bench: B.VEERAPPA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in granting exemption under Section 11. It also upheld the Tribunal's decision to disallow additions made by the assessing authority concerning building and infrastructure development funds.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that granted exemption under Section 11 to the assessee. The Revenue also questioned additions made by the assessing authority regarding building and infrastructure development funds.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 and whether additions for building and infrastructure funds were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.15 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),

BENGALURU.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1,

BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. CHILDREN’S EDUCATION SOCIETY NO.40, 1ST PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU.

... RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON’BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14-07-2016 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. I.T.A. NO.2155/BNG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for the appellants.

2.

The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act by following its earlier order which has not reached finality?

ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding assessing authority is not right in making additions in respect of building fund of Rs.11,44,245/- and infrastructure development fund of Rs.8,58,34,295/- as income as assessee failed to substantiate its claim?

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX v. GARDEN CITY EDUCATIONAL TRUST [(2011) 330 ITR 480 (KARN)] and in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER v. CHILDREN’S EDUCATION SOCIETY [(2013) 358 ITR 0373] respectively.

Following the aforesaid judgments of this Court, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed off.

SD/-

SD/- JUDGE

JUDGE

kvk

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →