9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The appeal under section 260-A of the Income tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B regarding the treatment of grants-in-aid received by a charitable society for promotion of sports from Central/State Govt., the method of accounting for interest income, and the adjudication of additional grounds of appeal raised by the revenue. Treatment of grants-in-aid: The assessee, a charitable society for promotion of sports, received grants from Central and State Government for specific purposes. The Assessing Officer treated the grants as income due to non-compliance with Form No.10 notice requirements. However, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal held that contributions received by a trust for charitable purposes are exempt under section 11 of the Act. Grants received for charitable purposes were deemed exempt from income tax, while income from interest was to be considered as income from other sources based on cash system of accounting. Grants-in-aid for expenditure were to be treated as income of the society, directing a fresh decision by the Assessing Officer. Method of accounting and voluntary contributions: The Tribunal found no reason to treat grants-in-aid for sports advancement as taxable income of the society, affirming the cash system of accounting maintained by the assessee. The grants were considered voluntary contributions and not taxable income, emphasizing that the method of accountancy is a factual matter. Adjudication of additional grounds: The judgment noted that certain additional grounds were raised by the revenue, but there was no reference to them in the Tribunal's order. Without this reference, the Court could not address whether the additional grounds were raised. The revenue had the option to request the Tribunal to consider these matters, and as such, the Court found no substantial question of law to arise. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was found to warrant further consideration in the case.
|
