RAJENDRA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI
In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed
ITA 6282/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13
Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6281/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6282/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13)
For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40
…ly to the professional/business income. 7.1 Regarding the first issue of denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act, CIT(A) disapproved the AO's finding in this regard considering the Patna High Court's Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Tata Steel Charitable Trust (203 ITR 764), which is relevant for the ratio that the provisions of section 13(3) would not apply to an employee of the Trust. Sri Atul Pundit is undisputedly an employee. We find that the trust has taken enough care by charging interest at the rate of 6% on the car loan. It is also a fact that the trust has granted such loans to many other employees and th…