DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA), NEW DELHI

ITA 1311/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 September 2023AY 2016-17Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)17 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving inadequate rent charged for the property. Relying on a previous High Court judgment involving the same assessee, the Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow exemption under sections 11 and 12 to the assessee, a registered trust. The AO had denied exemption, alleging violation of Section 13(2)(b) due to concessional rent provided to persons specified under Section 13(3).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee violated Section 13(2)(b) by providing rent concessions to specified persons, thereby forfeiting exemption under Sections 11 and 12. Whether the Revenue discharged its burden to prove inadequate rent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 13(2)(b),Section 13(3),Section 10(23C)(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(12)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CA
For Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR
Hearing: 31.08.2023

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.03.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi (“CIT(A”)) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2016-17. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that assessee has offered substantial concession in rent to person specified u/s 13(3), which is a clear violation of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act, 1961 and hence assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11/12 of the Act, 1961. 2. Whether Ld. CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances of the case was correct

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →