Patna High Court - Orders
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Sulabh International Social Se on 29 March, 2011
Author: S.K. Katriar
Bench: S.K. Katriar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.657 of 2010
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, PATNA
Versus
SULABH INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANISATION
-----------
For the Appellant: Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent: Dr. S.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.Alamdar Hussain Mr. A.K. Rastogi Mr. Arindam Mukherjee Kumari Gargi tuli, Advocates.
03- 29.3.2011 Learned counsel for the parties are present. The learned Assistant Standing Counsel for the department of Income-tax has formulated the following issues for adjudication in this appeal purporting to be substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 260A of the Income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the maintenance work as a charitable purpose u/s 2(15) of the Act, when the memorandum of association of the society does not include it as an object in any clause?
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee society 2 had not violated the provision of section 13(1)
(c) of the Act even though it was diverting substantial fund through its sub-contractors to the founder author of the trust who is a person covered u/s 13(3) (a) of the Act?
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption U/s 11 in complete oversight of the fact and law that the founder author is a person covered u/s 13(3) (a) of the Act and is deriving benefit from the assessee trust directly or indirectly and therefore, hit by the provisions of section 13(1)
(c) of the Act?
In view of the stand taken by the respondent, the following issue purporting to be a substantial question of law is, also formulated for adjudication:
(iv) Is the appeal maintainable in view of the scope and sweep of Section 260A of the Act, having been concluded by concurrent findings of facts? 3
and (v) Whether or not the appeal raises a substantial question of law in view of the parameters of section 260A of the Act?
The appeal is admitted.
Heard in part. Put up tomorrow (30.03.2011) again.
(S.K. Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/