Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 12AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) vs Acme Educational Society on 28 July, 2010
7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Delhi High
Court in Acme Educational Society (supra). The assessment year involved
in the case before the Delhi High Court is assessment year 2005-06. The
assessee trust before the Delhi High Court gave a loan of Rs.90,50,000 to
another educational society, whose president was brother of the assessee
society's president before the Delhi High Court. The department
contended that there was a violation of section 11(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the
Act since the amount was advanced to another society. The Delhi High
Court found that the advance of Rs.90,50,000 to Navbharat Education
8
ITA No. 162 & 163/Coch/2014
Society cannot be construed as investment or deposit, therefore, such
advance does not violate section 11(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Income-tax
Act since the same cannot be treated either as investment or as deposit.
Apparently, the provisions of Explanation to section 11(2) and section
11(3)(d) which was inserted by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 01-04-
2003 was not brought to the notice of the Delhi High Court, therefore, the
Delhi High Court had no occasion to consider the implications of
Explanation to section 11(2) and section 11(3)(d) of the Act.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii ... vs M/S. Audh Educational Society Kanpur ... on 14 July, 2010
2. Shri M Anil Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that both the assessees are
registered as charitable trust u/s 12AA of the Act. During the year under
consideration, the assessing officer found that both the assessees have
given loan to other trusts from the unutilised portion of the income which
exceeded more than 15%. Referring to section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act, the
ld.DR submitted that the assessee trust invested its funds in the form /
mode otherwise than prescribed in section 11(5) of the Act. Therefore,
according to the ld.DR, there was violation of section 11(2) r.w.s. 13(2)(d)
of the Act. According to the ld.DR, the assessee is not entitled for any
exemption. The ld.DR placed his reliance on the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Audh Educational Society (2011) 15
taxmann.com 235 (All.).
M/S.Kanpur Subhash Shiksha Samiti,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 November, 2013
Therefore, this
Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Delhi High
Court in Acme Education Society (supra) and the decision of the Lucknow
Bench of this Tribunal in Kanpur Subhash Shiksha Samiti (supra) may not
be applicable to the facts of this case.
1