9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment addresses the following common issues: i) Whether the deduction of expenses as an application of income, rather than expenditure incurred for earning income, is justified; ii) Whether allowing expenditure is justified when the assessee is not registered u/s 12A and not entitled to exemption u/s 11.
Details of the judgment: Issue i) Deduction of expenses as an application of income: The assessee, registered under the Societies Registration Act, sought exemption under u/s 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act until 2002-03. Subsequently, the respondent applied for registration u/s 12A from 2003-04 onwards. Despite facing initial rejection, registration was granted w.e.f. 1.4.2005. The appellant claimed expenses for promoting sports in various assessment years, which the AO initially denied due to lack of u/s 12A registration. However, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claimed expenses, emphasizing the legitimate nature of the expenditure incurred for sports activities. Issue ii) Expenditure allowance without u/s 12A registration: The Ld. DR contended that without u/s 12A registration, the assessee was ineligible for benefits under sections 11 and 12 of the Act, citing a Supreme Court decision. In response, the Ld. AR supported the first appellate order, highlighting the application of income towards sports promotion. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the expenses were genuine and related to sports activities, supported by documentary evidence and accounting details. While the principle of mutuality was raised, the Ld. CIT(A) did not apply it in this case. The judgment upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the genuineness of the claimed expenses for sports activities. Conclusion: The judgment concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) did not grant benefits under sections 11 & 12, making the Supreme Court's precedent on u/s 12A registration inapplicable. As the claimed expenses were found legitimate and related to sports activities, the revenue's appeals were deemed untenable. The judgment rejected the appeals and upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in favor of the respondent. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges.
|
