Karnataka High Court
The Director Of Income Tax vs Belimatha Mahasamsthana Socio ... on 8 March, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
{By s;§:;~.z§: v'S;¥3:§':4§$x;€;;?Ié§LA, ADV.)
' }sj1~2«: {§33}L.§§.§ATHA MAHASAMSTHANA
.'~.fSs3(_T3__C}"CUifFURAL aa EQUCATINAL TRUST
'rm. 616j2,1NDiRA NAGAR
f f 4' "£%A_r%!:GALOI€I3
2
in THE HIGH COURT 012 I-'ZA§3NA'I'AKA AT i3ANGALQRE
BATES THIS THE oath MY 0;: MARCH, 2013:
PRESENT _ W' ' }.
THE 1-i{T)N'BLE MRJUSFICE;I{.13.1'vIA§iJ'L3'§}?;f}%i¥i::: _ u
AND ' é
Ti-{E HOPVBLE MRs.Ju:=;m_cE 13*..\;f.'r~:AG;:.r§A*:f:~:r§VA .
:';'A.r¢o.2§.'&wzV}?;t?0:_&
BETWEEN:
1. THE nrrezacrorz o§fV';_r$cor$4fE
EXEMP1'iQ_NS_.R:§S§TRGT§;ANA;--I3UILfJ£'NG
;~.:RUPAT:%1ugT<;--A ROAED 'V
BANGA1,UR'E--A jg
THE ASS? D1;:2rs£:I'1:.?=.1'{t on I'N.§3o_.ME TAX
Exsmwlasgs <:1RQL13a':7(:2--}_ '"
RASFROTHAEA .!3U:w1:s;c;«..\
NRUPfi{I'HUN{3A~-.R{}AD '
. 'BANGALORE
[NJ
... APPELLANTS
NEii.LA1V1AGNAGA, NH 4
RESPONDENT
(S; Sri: 3; SHANKAR fin M LAVA, ADV.) Q './1 exernptiean/benefit under Seciion II of the after having recorded a categoricxzl finding .. exemption under Section 10(2£-BC} fiiiadj raj' t§fié'.r'§g;:--- " ;. eamwf be extended' to the assesses ano1?. th¢::t,it"- . had raised cash :0 meet the expenses-.. .
identgfyng the source.
3. Whether the Tribufzai Emldirzg that as the c2ssessee's. t3i})iIifi1£2t?.i.j object ' was charitable all oiher'vt'i:!§ztion'sv.e2s noiéd by vthg Assessing Qgicer would,» be retegated second place and the assmee -would' be eniiiéfed :0 the benefit ofe.1se(rt;3ti<m';" = "
4. Iifheifwr the _Tr'£bw'ia¥ ootiziitifiéd an error in faiting :9 {aka Hititaz 'oo:;sidé.rafi9ts° the dis- ailmriannesi 'madgé by 'A,*-ssessiéiiag of peak czisiaj,-dagfifit iof I€3_.6,60,----?~'47/- cmpus ..R9.'I+§,36;50é}/ aontrary to Sectfdn IgI'f§§)(d) '£)f RS.I,33,I2',5I6/- as ;,_ i_ru;z.>_im-;._- ' 'o::¢zrW_ Fexgpenditum and cbnseque5nzIy,1"frec¢fdg2'd cz perm-rme finding which afauld figitééé '€EeiLr ~Zgr»gs£a£3Eis}1eci that the assessee was Roi em'ii¢'e:dV to «gxezzegation '
13. Iloweflfgar, .I'1"e"e-.ri;;_tg_vthc icarned Counsel an both $iciAés_aA*:1§i« mg: fifiairsgibmission only the following substantial Lqu&sti::;1:1sVA£}f ta be. answered in this appeal 2 AA , _"1. fifixefiter {he Tribuital faiied £0 exairulne record a finding as held by the Assessing T. 0jfit3~,;:*' that me assessee had received donations "efg Rs. 28_,3(},094/- from bfingineering/MCA smdenis mntmzy to the Kamaialca Educsszficnal
7.frzsfi1'uf§0ns (Pm£1;ibf2io:i (sf Capifaiion. Fee) Act, " 1984 and the principles enundaieci by the Apax Court in mzrnber of judgnents which was crppased to law and vialaiim-.2 ofpuablic poficy and aonsequerzzly, mrwwt be treated as a charitable argrrsrtizafion.
/.
8' Having heard the counsel on both skiés' _ §E.l"{1S31 Gf the materiai on record, it is not t1j£=:--».
respondent asgessee is a culmial ' eciustatioaal trust, Hlilllillg educational i,;::stit11tim;1s"V~a11r1 [hi»§vi1ig'va£:i€$i3s."'LV professional caurses. IIoweve1fl"'!;::h e cgutfiiliififiza figs VI ea1*1::e-d cmmsel for the: revenué,' We;€vé: Ac€$i1cc~ted for the purpofie of allotmenfi ' for thc rekzvam:
assessmeilt yum.-'i am} the samé is not ' Merely because the I"ESp0lV?~;ti'f§IIf;.'VAVié!?fij':¢':LLi%;:': is manning prefessionai cc3u1*s£:s,_& it presumed by the Assessing Ofl';:v::er tfi:--;at_ i}'3.e .sai«:1" Vpfigiilfiililt which were received as daméjiigfiza Was'fitt1*11)1:tab1e to the allotialent of seats in the » 1fi:=3_zf.;':.1:z,t a,se?§é;ga;;1ent yezars. In the a'bse11c:e of them being '.3 for smth a ceraiatntian, we am unable to ac£;'*.é§?t "?§1e"éai:1 c:::;r;te;1tion of the eounsal for the revcmlt-3 % '£:};1:::t' the" aaaaaons received to an extent 9:' Rs.28,30,£)94[-
" %::§:;~g;ig thé said pefioé is in vi:3}ati;:3;:1 of the Pmhibition of
-»v-Capitation Fae Act, 1984 and fl1€i"6f.3I.'€, the trust hm} acted szspposeci ta pziblic pulley, Corxsequenfly, was net eutifled to be flfiatafi 33. a csharitable aiganizafion. The Tribuna} was ifxmacfi justifxxéd iii revemixzg tat": fifldiiigfi (sf thfi Assessing ./
10. Fm' the zafossesaizsi reasons, we find that the suh.st afifial questians of law raisad in this agpeal W311 hfiéffiié _ axiswexved agaiast the revenue and accordingly £5 " ~« .. dismissed.
*}UDGE Kw"