Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Acit, Jaipur vs Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur on 22 November, 2016
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No.380/JP/16
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11
The ACIT (exemption), cuke M/s Jaipur Development
Vs. Authority, JLN Marg, Jaipur
Circle- Jaipur, Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAATJ 4598 C
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No.381/JP/16
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12
The ACIT (exemption), cuke M/s Jaipur Development
Vs. Authority, JLN Marg, Jaipur
Circle- Jaipur, Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAATJ 4598 C
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No.382/JP/16
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13
The ACIT (exemption), cuke M/s Jaipur Development
Vs. Authority, JLN Marg, Jaipur
Circle- Jaipur, Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAATJ 4598 C
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shyamlal Agarwal (CA)
Shri Tarun Agarwal (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 23.09.2016
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 22/11/2016.
ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16
ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.
These are three common appeals filed by the Revenue against separate orders passed by the ld CIT(A)- 3, Jaipur dated 19.01.2016 for AY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Given that these appeals contain identical facts and common set of grounds of appeal, the same were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order.
2. In its appeal of A.Y. 2010-11, the grounds taken by the Revenue are as under:-
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur has erred in :
(1). allowing the exemption u/s 11 of the Act by holding that the activities of the appellant authority are charitable even though the amended provision of section 2(15) of the Act are attracted.
(2) holding that the AO erred in applying the provisions of section 145(3) and assess in the manner as provided in sec. 144 of the Act.
(3) allowing the development expenditure of Rs. 1,52,05,67,555/- by relying on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT inspite of the fact the assessee has changed accounting method.
(4) allowing a sum of Rs.16,07,46,832/- on account of disallowing 5% of development expenditure out of establishment and administrative expenditure related to change in accounting policy.
(5) allowing of Rs.1,05,752/- on account of expenses on shooting range in spite of the fact that these expenses are not for earning any income.
(6) allowing of Rs.6,32,10,322/- being expenditure on grants/contributions to charitable institution even though the assessee's activities is commercial in nature and exemption u/s 11 is denied.2
ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur (7) allowing Rs. 1,81,89,705/- on account of depreciation of fixed asset without appreciating the fact that the application of 100% expenditure of the capital assets is already allowed as capital expenditure hence further allowance of the depreciation on same capital asset would tantamount to double deduction.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Government authority formed under the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 and is wholly owned and controlled by the Government of Rajasthan. For the year under consideration, the assessee had filed its return of income on 12.10.2010 declaring loss of Rs.85,28,13,194/- and claimed exemption under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Act considering it to be charitable organization. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer observed that there has been change in the definition of charitable purposes w.e.f. 01.04.2009 i.e. AY 2009-10. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act through order dated 21.11.2008 w.e.f. 14.03.2007, later on in compliance of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 30.01.2009, it was made effective from 12.10.1982, but this registration was lateron withdrawn by order No. 1264 dated 29.12.2011 of CIT- II. Jaipur. The AO further observed that in view of the specific mandate of the IT Act as no registration u/s 12AA is effective from A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee would not be entitled for any exemption u/s 11, 12 & 13 of the Act for A.Y. 2010-11 and income of the assessee is to be computed as per Income tax Act considering it to be income as per normal provisions of the IT Act. The AO thereafter, after going through the income and expenditure statement and other details/information filed by the assesee observed that he is not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts maintained by the assessee as the assessee is not following accepted accounting principles. He invoked the provisions of section 145(3) and rejected the books of accounts.
3ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur of the assessee and the assessment was thereafter completed u/s 144 and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 92,59,18,500/-.
4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) who allowed the relief to the assessee and her relevant findings which are under challenge by the Revenue before us are as under:
"I have carefully considered the findings of the AO as also arguments of the ld. AR of the appellant. It is seen that all the issues raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur in ITA No. 427/JP/13 and ITA No. 447/JP/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 dated 04.01.2016. The Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur has held as under:
"The assessee has been granted registration by the order of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 927/JP/2007 order dated 30/05/2008 w.e.f. 14/3/2007 wherein the Coordinate Bench has held that the assessee's activities are charitable and are not covered u/s 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to give benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee. The income of the assessee is to be assessed on the real income basis which has been accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration. The appellant had changed method of accounting during the year under consideration but the same has been found more accurate and scientific to determine the assessee's income. Therefore, change of accounting is bonafide and same cannot be rejected on the ground that the assessee had claimed more expenses during the year under consideration. The case law relied by the assessee is squarely applicable. A change in the method of accounting should not be rejected for reasons that it would result in bringing into accounts in one year the losses of several years as held in the case of CIT Vs. Eastern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 575 (Cal.) Accordingly change of the accounting policy is allowed.
The assessee has claimed depreciation on fixed assets which is also allowable as held by the various courts in case of Trust where the assessee first made income for application of acquiring of assets and thereafter claiming depreciation on it. Accordingly, we allow the assessee's appeal and dismiss the revenue's appeal."4
ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur Respectfully following the order of ITAT Jaipur Bench, the AO is directed to allow the benefit of sec. 11 and 12 to the assessee.
Disallowance of development expenditure of Rs. 1520567555/- is deleted as ITAT has accepted the change in method of accounting. In respect of disallowance of Rs.160746832/- on account of establishment and administrative expenditure, Rs. 105752/- on account of expenses of shooting range, Rs.63210322/-being expenditure on grants/contributions is allowed as application of income since benefit of sec. 11 is granted. The claim of depreciation is also allowed in view of decision of ITAT reported supra. However, the disallowance of Rs. 15756523/- in respect of amortization of expense is confirmed as the same is already allowed in earlier years as held by the AO and not controverted by the assessee.
It is further seen that the AO after disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 11 re-casted the profit and loss account by making various additions/disallowances. However since I have accepted the claim of the assessee in allowing the exemption u/s 11, the various additions/disallowances made by the AO by recasting P&L account has no relevances and the same are deleted."
5. The ld CIT DR vehemently argued the matter and submitted that the order of ld CIT(A) is not acceptable to the Revenue for the reasons that the assessee's activities are commercial in nature and covered by 1st and 2nd proviso of sec. 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961. Even though the assessee is registered u/s 12AA, no benefit of sec. 11 & 12 can be provided to the assessee trust vide amended provisions of sec. 13(8) (effective from 01.04.2009) read with 1st and 2nd proviso of sect. 2(15). Thus, the fact that the assessee, Jaipur Development Authority is registered u/s 12AA or not does not make any difference as the first and second proviso of section 2(15) and the amended provisions of sec. 13(8) are applicable.
It was further submitted that though section 12AA registration has been allowed to the assessee by the Hon'ble ITAT by its order in ITA No.182/JP/2012 5 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur dated 30.09.2014, the department has challenged the order of the ITAT before the Hon'ble High Court against the allowing of registration u/s 12AA which is currently pending adjudication.
It was further submitted that on the issue of depreciation, ld CIT(A)'s decision is not acceptable in view of that the investment made in purchase of fixed assets has already been allowed as application of income in the year of investment made as per provisions of section 11, therefore, if any deduction is allowed on the same amount then it will tantamount to double deduction.
6. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appellant is a Government Authority wholly owned and controlled by the State Government. The main purpose of forming the JDA under JDA Act, 1982 as given in the JDA Act, which says in brief "Setting up an Authority for planning, coordinating and supervising for proper, orderly and rapid development of the areas in Jaipur region and of executing plans, projects and schemes for such development and to provide for the matters connected therewith, so that housing, community facilities, civic amenities and other infrastructural facilities are created."
The main functions of the authority are mostly those as mentioned in Schedule XII of Article 243 W of the constitutions for the municipalities. All activities of urban planning, town planning, infrastructure development and land & building regulations etc are carried to achieve the main objects. As such all the functions of the authority are for the advancement of general public utility. Most of the land is State Government land and if any acquisition of land is made, it is made only for the purpose of general public utility services.
7. The ld AR further submitted that the Authority was exempted under section 10(20)/ 10(20A), however after amendment in 10(20) and 6 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur withdrawal of section 10(20A), the authority was required to file return of income.
7.1. The registration was granted to the Authority by the order of this Honourable Jaipur Bench of ITAT, after considering all issues thereto with retrospective effect. (ITA No. 927/JP/2007 and ITA No. 1615/JP/2008).
7.2. Ld. CIT-II, Jaipur issued an order dated 29/12/2011 withdrawing the registration granted under section 12AA w.e.f. AY 2009-10. The whole order of withdrawal was on the wrong consideration that the activities are in the nature of trade commerce or business only because the total receipts side of the authority is more than the amount prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15) applies.
7.3 On Appeal before this Honourable Jaipur bench of ITAT, ITA No. 182/Jp/2012 order dated 30/9/2014, it has been held that the predominant object of JDA are Charitable and therefore the proviso to sec 2(15) of the IT Act does not apply to the JDA .
The Hon'ble Bench has discussed in detail all the relevant case laws and facts of the case with the functions and objects of the Authority and considering all these, the detailed order has been passed.
In order to give effect to the directions of the Hon'ble Bench, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) issued the Registration Certificate u/s 12 AA, clearly mentioning therein that assessment has to be made after giving benefits of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, to the assessee.
7.4. For the Assessment Year 2009-10, which was passed by the Ld. ACIT prior to the order of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench decision( 182/JP/2012), an appeal was filed by the Authority before the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench (ITA 7 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur No. 427 & 447/JP/2013) wherein all the submissions were considered and after detailed discussions on the grounds and for allowing the benefits of Section 11 and 12, it was held on Para 6 of the order that "We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee has been granted registration by the order of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No.927/JP/2007 order dated 30/05/2008 w.e.f. 14/3/2007, ITA No. 182/JP/2012 dated 30/09/2014 wherein the coordinate Bench has held that the assessee's activities are charitable and are not covered by proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to give benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee."
7.5 It was further held in the said order that "The appellant had changed method of accounting during the year under consideration but the same has been found more accurate and scientific to determine the assessee's income. Therefore, change of accounting is bonafide and same cannot be rejected on the ground that the assessee had claimed more expenses during the year under consideration. The case law relied by the assessee is squarely applicable. A change in the method of accounting should not be rejected for reasons that it would result in bringing into accounts in one year the losses of several years as held in the case of CIT Vs. Eastern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 575 (Cal.) Accordingly change of the accounting policy is allowed."Further at Last Para it was finally held "In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue's appeal is dismissed."
7.6 In view of giving effect to the order of the Coordinate Bench, the Ld. ACIT (Exemptions) has made the required computation and assessed the demand to Rs. Nil for AY 2009-10 after considering the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act as discussed by the Hon'ble Bench.
8ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur
8. It is to submit further to support that the proviso to section 2(15) is not hit by the appellant since the activities carried out by it are not in the nature of trade since there is no predominant purpose to earn profit. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad , Lucknow Bench in case of Lucknow development authority has held at last page of the order that:
"that mere selling some product at profit will not ipso facto hit assessee by applying proviso to section 2(15) and deny exemption available under section 11. The intention of the trustees and the manner in which the activities of the charitable trust institution are undertaken are highly relevant to decide the issue of applicability of the proviso to section 2(15). There is no material/evidence brought on record by the revenue which may suggest that the assessee was conducting its affairs on commercial lines with motive to earn profit or has deviated from its objects as detailed in the trust deed of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the proviso of section 2(15) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided under Section 11 of the relevant assessment year"
The same was also relied upon by this Hon'ble Bench of ITAT in its order for AY 200-10.
9. In the recent similar landmark case, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jodhpur Development Authority has passed the order holding at para 27 that "From various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme court discussed hereinabove, the settled position of law emerges is that if the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, may be involving element of profit, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charitable trust."
9ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur 9.1 It was further held at para 28 on page 27,28 and 29 that "It might be earning income but the primary object of the JDA certainly does not involve any profit motive whatsoever. Suffice it to say that the entire funds of the JDA is mandatorily required to be utilized for discarching the functions to achieve the object of integrated development of jodhpur region. Thus, predominate object of the JDA being to secure the integrated development of the jodhpur region which is undoubtedly falls within the expression 'advancement of any other objects of general public utility'. Some of the activities, undertaken by it, which are ancillary or incidental to the main object of general public utility, it does not cease to be charitable in character so as to render it intelligible to claim registration under section 12A read with section 12AA of the act of 1961. It is immaterial if some income is earned by ancillary and incidental activities, which as per the mandate of the relevant statute, is used for achieving or implementing such object." Thereby holding that the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable.
9.2 In the same case, the order was also passed regarding the UIT, Sriganganagar, where allowing application for assessment u/s 11 and 12, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held on page 31 of the order that "Undoubtedly, the aforesaid statutory functions which are being discharged by the UIT, are the activities undertaken for welfare of the public at large and certainly, achieve its predominant object of improvement of the urban area specified, the UIT, SRI GANGANAGAR is also engaged in sale, letting or exchange of any property of land comprised in the scheme and it is also empowered to levy betterment charges in terms of section 62 of the UIT act, incidental and ancillary to its main object of improvement of specified urban area. Restoring the matters back to the files of assessing officer for the assessment year 2004-05 2006-07 and 2010-11, for passing the assessment 10 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur orders afresh, also deserve to be dismissed. The appeal nos.95/13,96/13 and 98/13, directed against a common order of the ITAT dated 18.01.13 of the ITAT, jodhpur and appeal no. 12/15 directed against order dated 23.07.14 of the ITAT, jodhpur, are also dismissed ."
9.3 Further, the Hon'ble High Court has considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Jammu Development Authority and has held at Para 26 on Page 24 that "Coming to the decision of Jammu &Kashmir high court in Jammu development authority's case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the revenue, reveals that the appeal preferred by the Jammu development authority was dismissed by the court observing that there are findings of facts that the assessee- appellant has not been acting to advance any of the object concerning general public utility. Further while referring to first proviso to section 2(15), the court has observed that "we find that no substantial question of law much less a substantial question of law would emerge from the impugned order of income tax appellate tribunal warranting admission of the appeal." A bare perusal of the order reveals that the catena of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court referred to hereinabove, interpreting the effect of first proviso in context of the main provision of section 2(15), which defines 'charitable purpose', were not brought to the notice of the court and therefore, the said order passed by the court by merely recording its ipse dixit does not help the revenue in any manner."
10. The ld AR further submitted that all the Grounds of Appeal raised before your good selves by the Department for the Assessment year 2010- 11 are squarely covered in favour of the assessee, i.e. Respondent by the decision of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
11ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur 10.1 The submissions made by us to the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Jaipur on 08.01.2016 giving full details, have been duly discussed in the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals). The table below shows the Ground of Appeal raised before your good selves by the Department under this appeal, and the decision of Ld. CIT(Appeals) with reference to order of the Hon'ble Bench:
Grounds taken by Revenue in Decided by the Ld. CIT(A) in its order AY 10-11 dated 19.01.2016
1. The learned CIT (Appeals)-3, The Ld. CIT (A) held that the issue raised Jaipur has erred in allowing the in this appeal are squarely covered by exemption u/s 11 of the Act by the decision of the Hon'ble Jaipur Bench holding that the activities of the of ITAT in ITA No. 427 and 447/JP/2013 appellant Authority are for AY 2009-10, which is clear and Charitable even though the justified in facts as well as in law.
amended provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act are attracted. The Ld. CIT (A) has held at first para on page 11 of the order that "Respectfully following the order of ITAT Jaipur Bench the AO is directed to allow the benefits of sec. 11 and 12 to the assessee."
2. The learned CIT (Appeals)-3, The Ld. CIT (A) held that the issue raised Jaipur has erred in holding that in this appeal are squarely covered by the AO erred in applying the the decision of the Hon'ble Jaipur Bench provisions of Section 145(3) and of ITAT in ITA No. 427 and 447/JP/2013 assess in the manner as for AY 2009-10, which is clear and provided in Sec 144 of the justified in facts as well as in law. Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Ld. CIT (A) has held on page 11 of the order that "Respectfully following the order of ITAT Jaipur Bench the AO is directed to allow the benefits of sec. 11 and 12 to the assessee." And the change in method of accounting has been held in order.
4. The learned CIT (Appeals)-3, The Ld. CIT (A) held that the issue raised Jaipur has erred in allowing a in this appeal are squarely covered by sum of Rs. 16,07,46,832/- on the decision of the Hon'ble Jaipur Bench account of disallowing 5% of of ITAT in ITA No. 427 and 447/JP/2013 12 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur development expenditure out for AY 2009-10, which is clear and of establishment and justified in facts as well as in law.
administrative expenditure
related to change in accounting The Ld. CIT (A) has held at second para
policy. on page 11 of the order that
"Respectfully following the order of ITAT
5. The learned CIT (Appeals)-3, Jaipur Bench the AO is directed to allow
Jaipur has erred in allowing of the benefits of sec. 11 and 12 to the
Rs. 1,05,752/- on account of assessee. Disallowance of development
expenses on shooting range in expenditure of Rs. 1520567555/- is
spite of the fact that these deleted as ITAT has accepted the change
expenses are not for earning in method of accounting. In respect of
any income. disallowance of Rs. 160746832/- on
account of establishment and
6. The learned CIT (Appeals)-3, administrative expenditure, Rs.
Jaipur has erred in allowing of 105752/- on account of expenses of
Rs. 6,32,10,322/- being shooting range, Rs. 63210322/- being
expenditure on grant expenditure on grant/contribution is
/contribution of charitable allowed as application of income since
institutions even though the benefit of section 11 is granted. The
assessee's activities is Claim of depreciation is also allowed in
commercial in nature and view of decision of ITAT reported supra"
exemption u/s 11 is denied.
7. The learned CIT (Appeals)-3,
Jaipur has erred in allowing Rs.
1,81,89,705/- on account of
depreciation of the fixed assets
without appreciating the fact
that the application of 100%
expenditure of the capital
assets is already allowed as
capital expenditure hence
further allowance of the
depreciation on same capital
asset would tantamount to
double deduction.
13
ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16
ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur
10.2 From the submissions above, it is apparently clear that:
1) All the issues raised by the department under this appeal are directly related to the Registration of Assessee as Charitable trust and the detailed decisions and findings of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the ITA No. 182/JP/2012 that the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable are in place.
Further the benefits of section 11 &12 shall be allowed and assessment has to be made accordingly. This has been duly mentioned in the Registration Certificate issued by the Income Tax Department in compliance of the decision of Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT.
Further the order for AY 2009-10 as decided by Hon'ble this Bench of ITAT clearly directed to the AO to give benefit of Section 11 and 12 of the IT Act to the assessee and accordingly 2009-10 has been assessed and also Ld. CIT (A) has decided 2010-11 in the same manner.
2) Further Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has also held in case of Jodhpur Development Authority and UIT, Sriganganagar that the proviso to the section 2(15) is not applicable and holding that if the predominant purpose of the entity is charitable, then they are valid Charitable Trust and benefits of Section 11 and 12 are available to them.
11. We now refer to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 182/JP/2012 dated 30.09.2014 whereby the assessee's registration u/s 12AA was restored with effect from AY 2009-10. The relevant findings are contained at Para 6 of its order which is reproduced as under:
"We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The JDA was established in October, 14 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur 1982 by JDA Act. Purpose of JDA is for planning, coordinating and supervising for proper, orderly and rapid development of the areas in Jaipur region, in which several government departments, local authorities and other organization are at present engaged within their own jurisdictions to provide also that such authroty be enabled either itself or through other authority to formulate and execute plans, projects and schemes for the development of Jaipur region. So that housing, community facilities, civic amenities and other infrastructure are properly created for the population of Jaipur region in the prospective of 2001 AD or thereafter including the intermediate stage and to provide for matters connected with the purpose of aforesaid. Later on this Act further amended from time to time as per need of Jaipur region. As per chapter (vi), functions of the authorities have been defined in item No.
(a) to (s). As per item-(h), the authority is authorized to develop agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, forestry, dairy development, transport, communication, schooling, cultural activities, sports, medicare, tourism, entertainment and similar other activities. As per item-(n), it performs in the area of urban renewal, environment and ecology directly or through its functional boards, therefore, the JDA not only planning the urban area with master development plan and zonal development plan but also sanction projects and schemes for development. The JDA is a tool of State government for coordinated and planned development in Jaipur region. In practical, the main work of JDA is construction of roads, sewerage, parks, play grounds, provide plots for educational, health and cultural institution for over all development of the community. By making planned development it provides smooth transportation so that air pollution can be minimized and save time of 15 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur the public. If it is left in the hands of private operator, these facilities would not be provided on similar price as provided by the JDA. Whatever, the Revenue is generated through these activities are finally utilized for the benefit of the public. The intention of the institution is not to earn profit but recover the cost of the establishment as well as other expenditure to implement the object of the JDA. The State Government also give the grant to it. As per Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the land is owned by the State Govt. but farmers are lessee for 99 years in perpetuity. It can be acquired for the public purposes. Various sports as well as community facilities provided by the JDA are not for profit motive but for the development of the whole urban community. The learned DR as well as learned AR cited various case laws against and in favour of the assessee but recently Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority has held that mere selling some product at profit will not ipso facto hit assessee by applying proviso to section 2(15) and deny exemption available under section 11. The intention and manner of the assessee was not to earn profit. Further the amendment made in Section 2(15) is effective from 2011-12 as clarified by the CBDT in its circular mentioned above. The ITAT 'A' Bench of Lucknow in the case of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. CIT-1, Lucknow has held that as per Section 12AA that the CIT is satisfied that the activity of such Trust or Institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the object of the Trust or Institution, as the case may be. The CIT shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such Trust or Institution. It is essential that one of these two conditions must be satisfied that either the activities of such Trust are not genuine or the activities are not being carried out in accordance with the object 16 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur of the Trust. The Bench did not find any condition in assessee's case.
Therefore, the ITAT 'A' Bench of Lucknow allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. In our case, the conditions are not found by the CIT, he simply applied Section 2(15) of the Act for cancelling the registration of the institution. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of M/s GS1 India Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) & Anr. has considered amended Section 2(15) of the Act and held that with regard to scenario prior to 2008 amendment applied test of predominant object of activity enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Surat Cloth Manufacturing Association to determine whether primary object of the activity involved in carrying out the object of general public utility is to be subserved the charitable purpose or to earn profit. In case where the predominant object of the activity is to carry out charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it does not lose its character of charitable purpose merely because some profit arises from such activities. Therefore, money earned from business held under trust or otherwise, to feed the charity would not disentitle or negate the claim of engagement in charitable purpose defined under section 2(15) of the Act. It further held that CBDT circular No. 11/2008 emphasized that 2008 amendment is only applicable to residual category, charitable entity when it carries on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, on any activity and to determine whether such activity is commercial will be decided on its own facts and no generalization is possible. However, the tax authorities in the context of the above circular denied tax exemptions on the premises that charitable activity was only a mask to cover business activity of the charitable entity to determine whether the residual category, charitable entity is engaged in any business activity, the issue 17 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur of the self enrichment and self gain should be carefully looked into. A small contribution by way of fees should not be emulated the transaction or the give activity to be commercial in nature. As per Section 2(15), the charitable activity test means activity with a view to make or earns profit. The four integrates laid down are (a) profit motive is a critical factor to discern whether the activity is business, trade or commerce, (b) charitable activity should be devoid of selfishness or illiberal spirit, (c) the underline propelling motive is not for commercial exploitation but general public good and (d) fees charged if any should be nominal and based on commercial principle.
Applying the above test, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that a mere levy of fees is neither reflective of business aptitude nor indicative of profit oriented intent. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that when propelling motive is not to earn profit but general public good, the charitable entity will fail the business test and meet the touchstone of charity. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court further held that charging fees on IPR sense profit motive does not amount to commercial exploitation. Moreover, when the fees charged is commensurate based on commercial or business principles, the charity activity test is fulfilled. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruled as primary and predominant activity is charitable in nature. The nominal fees charged are important for covering operational cost of the petitioner. Thus, keeping in view of the charitable activity test, it was held that business activity of the petitioner is integral to its charitable purpose and question of requirement of separate books of account for the business activity seems redundant. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court's findings is squarely applicable in the case of the appellant. Further proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act has held by the Hon'ble 18 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Indian Plastic Association (supra), is to cover those, which under the garb of general public utility carry on business on commercial activities to escape the liability under the Act gaining exemption U/s 11 of the Act, we also feel that this section applied on such type of trust or institution who get registration U/s 12A of the Act for claiming the exemption U/s 11 of the Act. The appellant is a government agency and engaged in the coordinate and planned development of Jaipur region and which is predominant object of it. The learned CIT also erred in applying the provisions of Section 293(c) of the Act, in this case, which applied withdrawal of approval granted under any provision of this Act, notwithstanding that a provision to withdraw such approval has not been specifically provided for in such provision. For cancellation of registration, the specific provision U/s 12AA is provided. Therefore, we are of the considered view that learned CIT was no right to withdraw the registration of the appellant from A.Y. 2009-10. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and directed to grant the registration to the JDA."
12. We now refer to the subsequent decision of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 427/JP/13 and ITA No. 447/JP/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 dated 04.01.2016 which was pronounced subsequent to restoration of registration under section 12AA and whereby the Coordinate Bench has disposed off identical grounds of appeal as raised before us. The relevant findings are reproduced as under:
"The assessee has been granted registration by the order of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 927/JP/2007 order dated 30/05/2008 w.e.f. 14/3/2007 wherein the Coordinate Bench has held that the assessee's activities are charitable and are not covered u/s 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to give benefit of Section 11 19 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur and 12 of the Act to the assessee. The income of the assessee is to be assessed on the real income basis which has been accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration. The appellant had changed method of accounting during the year under consideration but the same has been found more accurate and scientific to determine the assessee's income. Therefore, change of accounting is bonafide and same cannot be rejected on the ground that the assessee had claimed more expenses during the year under consideration. The case law relied by the assessee is squarely applicable. A change in the method of accounting should not be rejected for reasons that it would result in bringing into accounts in one year the losses of several years as held in the case of CIT Vs. Eastern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 575 (Cal.) Accordingly change of the accounting policy is allowed.
The assessee has claimed depreciation on fixed assets which is also allowable as held by the various courts in case of Trust where the assessee first made income for application of acquiring of assets and thereafter claiming depreciation on it. Accordingly, we allow the assessee's appeal and dismiss the revenue's appeal."
13. We now refer to the recent decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT-1, Jodhpur vs Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur and others dated 5th July, 2016 (D.B. Income tax appeals no. 63/12 and five connected matters) as brought to our notice by the ld AR.
13.1 The question for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court was whether the activities of JDA, Jodhpur and UIT, Sriganganagar, which have been constituted and established by the Government of Rajasthan under the provisions of Jodhpur development Authority Act, 2009 (JDA Act) and Urban Improvement Trust Act 1959 (UIT Act) for the purposes of planning, coordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid development of 20 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur Jodhpur Region and for the purposes of improvement and expansion of the urban area of Sriganganagar as specified, respectively, fall within the definition of charitable purposes as defined u/s 2(15) of the Act of 1961 so as to make them entitled to registration under the provisions of section 12A read with section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961, for claiming the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 read with Section 13 of the Act, of 1961.
13.2 The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court while disposing off the above question are referred as under:
"15. It is to be noticed that the registration of the trust or institution u/s 12A is condition precedent for claiming exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act but the registration u/s 12A by itself does not make a trust or institution entitled to claim exemption under section 11 & 12 of the Act unless, the conditions for claiming exemption as envisaged u/s 11 & 12 of the Act, are satisfied. Obviously, the entitlement of the person or the trust claiming exclusion of the income under section 11 or 12 has to be determined by the AO after making necessary inquiries regarding the fulfilment of the requisite conditions as enumerated under the aforesaid provisions. But the fact remains that under section 12AA the scope of the enquiry under section 12AA for the purpose of grant of registration u/ 12A shall be confined with regard to the objects of the trust or institution and genuineness of its activities and it cannot travel to the extent that whether the income of the trust in respect whereof exemption is claimed, is wholly applied for the religious or charitable purpose or not so as to make them entitle to claim exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act of 1961."
"16. As noticed hereinabove, the contention of the Revenue is that since the assesses are involved in carrying on activities in the nature of trade and commerce, by virtue of first proviso to Section 2(15), their 21 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur activity/objects cannot be recognized as for charitable purposes so as to make them entitled for registration under section 12A of the Act of 1961."
"17. Section 2(15) of the Act 1961 which defines "charitable purposes' read as under:
(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest and the advancement of any other object of general public utility.
Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commence or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce, or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention, of the Income from such activity. Provided further that the first proviso shall not apply if the aggregate value of the receipts from the activities referred to therein is twenty-five lakh rupees or less in the previous year."
"18. The 'charitable purpose' as defined u/s 2(15) and particularly, the expression 'any other object of general public utility used therein, have been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in catena of decisions, which may be beneficially referred. "
"27. From the various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed hereinabove, the settled position of law emerges is that if the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, may be involving element of profit, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charitable trust."
"28 In the backdrop of settled position of law discussed hereinabove, adverting to the facts of the present case, indubitably, JDA is a statutory body constituted and established under the provisions of section 3 of the JDA Act with a main object to secure the integrated development of 22 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur Jodhpur Region and for that purpose to discharge inter alia the functions of Urban Planning including preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans; formulation and sanction of the projects and schemes for the development of Jodhpur Region or any part thereof, execution of the project and schemes directly by itself or through a local authority or other agency, coordinating execution of projects or schemes for the development of Jodhpur Region supervision or otherwise ensuring adequate supervision over the planning and execution of any project or schemes the expenses of which in whole or in part are to be met from Jodhpur Region Development funds; preparing schemes and advising the concerned authorities department and agencies in formulating and undertaking schemes for development of agriculture horticulture, forestry, dairy development, transport communication, schooling, cultural activities, sports, medicine, tourism and similar other activities, to prepare Master Plan for traffic control and management, devise policy and programmes of action for smooth flow of traffic and matters connected therewith, undertaking housing activity in Jodhpur Region etc. are essentially the functions, which promote the welfare of the general public. Of course, while discharging the said functions, the JDA also discharges function to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of property movable or immovable as may be deemed necessary and also enters into contract, agreements or arrangements with any person or organization and deem necessary for performing its function and in this process, it might be earning income but the primary object of the JDA certainly does not involve any profit motive whatsoever. It is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of section 51 of JDA Act, for the purpose of discharging the statutory functions, "The Jodhpur Region Development Fund" is created to which all money received by the authority is credited including amount of contribution to be made by the State Government, such other money as may be paid to the authority by the State Government, Central Government or any other authority or agency by way of grant, loans advances or otherwise income derived from premium on second and subsequent sale of vacant land, income from levy on vacant land, all fees, costs and chares received by the JDA under the JDA Act or any other law for time being in force, all money received by JDA 23 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur from the disposal of land buildings and other property movable and immovable and other transactions including lease money, urban assessment development charges and other similar charges and all money received by way of rents and profits or in any other manner or from any other source. A fortiori, as per the mandate of section 54 of the JDA Act, all property funds and other assets vesting in the JDA shall be held and applied by it for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the Act. Suffice it to say that the entire funds of the JDA is mandatorily required to be utilized for discharging the functions to achieve the object of integrated development of Jodhpur Region. Thus, predominant object of the JDA being to secure the integrated development of the Jodhpur Region which is undoubtedly falls within the expression advancement of any other objects of general public utility within the definition of section 2(15) of the Act of 1961 and therefore, on account of profit being earned by it through some of the activities undertaken by it, which are ancillary or incidental to the main object of general public utility, it does not cease to be charitable in character so as to render it ineligible to claim registration under section 12A read with section 12AA of the Act of 1961. As a matter of fact, it is not even the case of the Revenue that the object of general public utility sought to be achieved by constitution and establishment of the JDA as such involve carrying on of any activity for profit and therefore, it is immaterial if some income is earned by ancillary and incidental activities which as per the mandate of the relevant statute, is used for achieving or implementing such object. The genuineness of the activities of the JDA which are regulated by the provisions of the JDA act and the Rules made thereunder, cannot be doubted. Thus the order passed by the ITAT holding the JDA, Jodhpur entitled for registration under section 12A read with Section 12AA of the Act of 1961, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality."
12. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material on record. It is manifestly clear that the asseessee has been duly registered as a charitable organisation under section 12AA of the Act for the impugned 24 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur assessment year, a condition precedent for availing exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. The Coordinate Bench while restoring the registration under section 12AA of the Act vide its order dated 30.9.2014 (in ITA No. 182/JP/2012) has also examined the matter from the perspective of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act which was the main contention raised by the Revenue while withdrawing the registration. After taking into consideration the rival contentions, the Coordinate Bench has given a finding that the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the assessee as "the appellant is a government agency and engaged in the coordinate and planned development of Jaipur region and which is predominant object of it." The said order of the Coordinate Bench has since been followed by the Coordinate Bench in its subsequent order dated 4.01. 2016 (referred supra) while disposing off identical grounds of appeal as in the instant case raised by the Revenue in respect of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Therefore, the argument raised by the ld CIT DR that even though the assessee is registered u/s 12AA, benefit of sec. 11 & 12 cannot be provided to the assessee in view of the proviso of section 2(15) doesn't support the case of the Revenue as the said argument/contention has already been considered by the Coordinate Benches and held not applicable and we see no justifiable reason to deviate from the said position.
13. Further, the fact that the Revenue has not accepted the said decision of the Coordinate Bench and has since filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, mere filing of an appeal cannot be held a reason sufficient enough to disregard the Coordinate Bench ruling. The judicial discipline requires the Assessing officer and the CIT to follow the order of the jurisdictional Tribunal unless the operation of the said decision has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court which is not the case before us.
25ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur
14. Further, the ld AR has drawn our reference to recent jurisdictional High Court decision in case of Jodhpur Development Authority (supra) and submitted that the ratio of the said decision squarely applies in the instant case. In order to determine whether the facts of the instant case are pari- materia with the facts brought up before the Hon'ble High Court, we have gone through the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. Section 16 of the JDA Act provides that the main objects of the Authority shall be to secure integrated development of the Jaipur Region and for that purpose functions of the Authority shall inter-alia include Urban Planning including preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans and carrying out surveys for the purpose and also making alterations therein as may be deemed necessary; formulation and sanction of the projects and schemes for the development of Jaipur Region or any part thereof, execution of the project and schemes directly by itself or through a local authority or other agency, coordinating execution of projects or schemes for the development of Jaipur Region; supervision or otherwise ensuring adequate supervision over the planning and execution of any project or schemes the expenses of which in whole or in part are to be met from Jaipur Region Development funds; preparing schemes and advising the concerned authorities department and agencies in formulating and undertaking schemes for development of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, forestry, dairy development, transport communication, schooling, cultural activities, sports, medicine, tourism and similar other activities; undertaking housing activity in Jaipur Region provided that the delineation of responsibility for housing between Rajasthan Housing Board and the Authority will be made by state government effective from the date fix by it; to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of property, movable or 26 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur immovable as may be deemed necessary; to enter into contracts, agreements or arrangements with any person or organization as it deem necessary; to prepare Master Plan for traffic control and management, devise policy and programmes of action for smooth flow of traffic and matters connected therewith; and to do all such acts and things which are necessary for the furtherance of the objects for which the authority is established. Further, as per the provisions of section 55 of JDA Act, for the purpose of discharging the statutory functions, "The Jaipur Region Development Fund" is created to which all money received by the authority is credited including amount of contribution to be made by the State Government, such other money as may be paid to the authority by the State Government, Central Government or any other authority or agency by way of grant, loans advances or otherwise, 90% share of tax recovered on land and building situated within the Jaipur Region, income derived from premium on second and subsequent sale of vacant land, income from levy on vacant land, all fees, costs and charges received by the Authority under this Act or any other law for time being in force, all money received by Authority from the disposal of land buildings and other property movable and immovable and other transactions including lease money, urban assessment, development charges and other similar charges and all money received by way of rents and profits or in any other manner or from any other source or from donations. Further, section 58 of the JDA Act provides that all property, funds and other assets vesting in the Authority shall be held and applied by it for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the Act.
14.1 It is thus noted that the main objects of the Jaipur Development Authority and the functions/activities to achieve such objectives are pari-
27ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur materia with that of the Jodhpur development Authority. Further, the entire funds of the Jaipur Development Authority is mandatorily required to be utilized for discharging the functions to achieve the object of integrated development of Jaipur Region. In light of above, the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Jodhpur development authority and others (supra) squarely applies to the Jaipur Development Authority where the Hon'ble High Court has held that the "predominant object of the JDA being to secure the integrated development of the Jodhpur Region which is undoubtedly falls within the expression advancement of any other objects of general public utility within the definition of section 2(15) of the Act of 1961 and therefore, on account of profit being earned by it through some of the activities undertaken by it, which are ancillary or incidental to the main object of general public utility, it does not cease to be charitable in character so as to render it ineligible to claim registration under section 12A read with section 12AA of the Act of 1961." The said decision thus support the case of the Jaipur Development Authority for being eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act.
15. Further, on perusal of assessment order, it is observed that limited ground on which exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act was denied was on account of non-registration under section 12AA of the Act. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that besides non-registration under section 12AA, the assessee has failed to fulfil any other conditions as envisaged u/s 11, 12 and 13 of the Act by virtue of which it shall be denied the exemption under section 11 & 12 of the Act. In fact, on perusal of assessment order, it is noted that the Assessing officer has noted in context of grant of Rs 2,50,00,000 to Amber Development Authority and of Rs 3,82,10,322 to Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited that "these expenses would be admissible as application of income if it was to be considered exempted under section 11, 12 and 13 and as the benefit of 28 ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur section 11 is not admissible, the sum paid to these two institutions as grant would not be admissible" and hence added back to assessee's income. Similar is the position in respect of other disallowances except for an amount of Rs 1,57,56,523 which has been allowed in the earlier years and disallowance thereof confirmed by the ld CIT(A). It is thus clear that the Revenue has not disputed any of these expenses as application of income (except Rs 1,57,56,523 which was already allowed in earlier years) for want of fulfilment of any of the conditions specified under section 11, 12 and 13 of the Act. Regarding applicability of section 13(8), we have already held above that in view of proviso to section 2(15) not applicable in the case of the assessee, provisions of section 13(8) would not be applicable.
16. Now, coming to the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act on account of change in the accounting policy and the consequent additions of Rs 152,05,67,555 and Rs 16,07,46,832 made by the AO, the Coordinate Bench has already examined this matter in the year of change of accounting policy ie. AY 2009-10 and has held that "the appellant had changed method of accounting during the year under consideration but the same has been found more accurate and scientific to determine the assessee's income. Therefore, change of accounting is bonafide and same cannot be rejected on the ground that the assessee had claimed more expenses during the year under consideration." On the issue of depreciation and double deduction, the matter has again been examined by the Coordinate Bench earlier and decided in favour of the assessee. Nothing has been brought to our notice which controvert the said findings of the Coordinate Bench and we accordingly, do not see any infirmity in ld CIT(A) following the said decision of the Coordinate Bench.
29ITA Nos. 380, 381 & 382/JP/16 ACIT (E) Circle, Jaipur vs. JDA, Jaipur
17. In light of above discussions, in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, respectfully following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in case of Jodhpur Development Authority and Coordinate Benches (referred supra), we dismiss the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue.
18. In ITA No. 381 & 382/JP/16, admittedly the facts and circumstances of the matter are identical to ITA No. 380/JP/16, the above discussion and finding given by us in ITA No. 380/JP/16 shall apply mutatis mutandis to these two appeals as well.
In the result all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/11/2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
(KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Jaipur
Dated:- 22/11/2016
Pillai
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs "kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ACIT (E), Circle, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT (Exemptions)- Jaipur
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)-III, Jaipur
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 380-382/JP/2016) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar.30