9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1195 - HC - Income TaxDenial of exemption u/s 11 - since the application of income was more than 85%, in terms of Section 11 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the question of denying the exemption to the Assessee does not arise? - Held that - Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, confirms that since the application of income was more than 85%, in terms of Section 11 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the question of denying the exemption to the Assessee does not arise. The question framed by this Court on 6th December 2016, is not required to be answered. The impugned order 2016 (6) TMI 177 - ITAT DELHI passed by the ITAT is, therefore, maintained.
Issues: Application of income exceeding 85% for Assessment Year 2012-13 under Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In this judgment, the court dealt with the issue of whether the application of income by the Assessee-Society for the Assessment Year 2012-13 exceeded 85% as required by Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Respondent's counsel presented a statement indicating that the total application of revenues of the Assessee-Society for the relevant year was 86.13% of its income, excluding expenditure on the Statue of Maharaja Surajmal. The Respondent argued that since the application of income was above 85%, the Assessee should not be denied exemption. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, representing the Appellant, acknowledged that the application of income exceeded 85%, as per Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, thus negating the need to deny the Assessee exemption based on this criterion. The court noted that the Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue confirmed that the application of income by the Assessee-Society for the relevant year was indeed more than 85%, in compliance with Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the court determined that there was no basis to deny the Assessee exemption as the threshold requirement was met. As a result, the court found that the question framed earlier was no longer necessary to be addressed, and the impugned order dated 30th May, 2016, issued by the ITAT, was upheld. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the maintenance of the ITAT's order.
|
