Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S. G.R.Govindarajulu & Sons ... on 7 September, 2004

Kandla Dock Labour Board, Gandhidham vs Assessee on 12 December, 2008

original order of the ITAT, we find that the ITAT has discussed the provisions of Sec.11(1)(a) and 11(1)(2) of the Act. The ITAT had also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. G.R. Govindarajulyu & Sons Charities 271 ITR 145 (Mad) and the judgment of the Hon;ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association 247 ITR-201 wherein it has been held that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of Sec.11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required under Rule 17 in Form No.10 applicable at the relevant time. It is further held that if during the assessment proceedings, the A.O. did not have the necessary information, question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. It is further held that if Form No.10 is available then no income can be taxed and the assessee is entitled for deduction. After these discussions, the ITAT sent back the matter to the file of the A.O. to decide the issue afresh, in view of provisions of Sec.11(1)(a) and 11(2)(b) and also that if the assessee filed Form No.10 along with the return of income. To be more specific, the direction of the Tribunal reads, thus - "Therefore, we reverse the finding of the C.I.T.(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh keeping in view the provisions of Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(2)(b) and if the assessee has filed form No.10 alongwith the return of income, the Assessing Officer is directed to reframe the assessment as per law." So, the assessing officer had to reframe the assessment order in accordance with law only, albeit all other directions, whatever may there be. In the conjoined direction issued by the Tribunal, the words "reframe the assessment as per law" prevail over all other directions. In nutshell, whatever may be the other directions of the Tribunal, still, finally, the assessing officer was directed to frame the assessment as per law only. So skirting the direction only to the extent of "keeping in view the provisions of Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(2)(b) and if the assessee has filed form No.10 alongwith the return of income", in our opinion, would go to show that the department wanted to recognize and accept the direction only to the extent which was suitable to them. This is not in accordance with the law propounded by the judiciary. The direction of the Tribunal has to be read as a whole.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oriental Charitable Foundation, ... vs Cit(Exemptions), Kolkata on 4 July, 2024

9. Thus, a bare reading of the provisions show that if the trust receives any income which is computed as per the commercial principle [(CIT Vs. PSG & Sons Charity (1197) 223 ITR 831 (Mad)] the same shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, if the conditions in clauses (a) and (d) are fulfilled. Clause (a) refers to income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes to the extent to which such income is applied to such purpose in India and in case the same is accumulated or set apart for application to such purpose in India, it is not in excess of 15% of the income from such property. Thus, clause (a) refers to the income derived from property held under trust and application of such 9 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18 income to the extent specified being 85% in order to avail the exemption. Clause (d) refers to income in the form of voluntary contributions made under the specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution. There is an amendment requiring investment or deposit in one or more of the forms in sub-section (5) to be maintained specifically for such corpus. However, we are not concerned with the amendment as the same is inserted w.e.f 01.04.2022 and is not relevant for the year under consideration. Explanation (1) to sub-section (1) of section 11 mentions that in computing the 15% of the income which may be accumulated or set apart, any such voluntary contributions as are referred to section 12 shall be deemed to be part of the income. Section 12(1) relating to voluntary contributions is reproduced as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Market Commitee, vs Assessee on 12 January, 2009

In the circumstances and facts of the case the matter is restored to the file of the AO who will decide the issue de novo keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PSG & Sons Charities (supra) and after obtaining the details from the asessee and by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground, therefore, is allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Swasth Foundation, Mumbai vs Ito(Exemption) Ward 2(3), Mumbai on 30 April, 2024

8. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the decision in the case of CIT v/s G.R. Govindarajulu & Sons Charities ([2005) 144 Taxman 300 (Madras)) where it has been held that there is no mandatory requirement under section 11(1) requiring an assessee to exercise option in a prescribed form, as contemplated under section 11(2), as it is enough for such assessee to submit a statement along with return to exercise such option for claiming benefit of section 11(1). The aforesaid decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court vide 61 taxmann.com 400
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1