2022 (9) TMI 501 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - assessee had committed violation within the meaning of provisions of section 13(1)( d) by making investment in equity shares and in Share Application Money for purchase of shares in contravention to the provisions of section ll(5) therefore, benefit of exemption of sections 11 and 12 were denied - HELD THAT - Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record, it can be observed that in assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15 2020 (9) TMI 722 - ITAT DELHI decided on merits in favour of the assessee and the Revenue has not been able to cite any distinction of fact or law justifying a different opinion, for the present assessment year. Accordingly, the grounds are not sustainable and the appeal of revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) by making investments in contravention of section 11(5).
2. Denial of benefits under sections 11 and 12 leading to assessment under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act.
3. Treatment of entrance fee in computation of income.
4. Dispute regarding the nature of investments made and applicability of government directions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the Revenue challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment of an assessee company. The Revenue contended that the investments made by the assessee in equity shares and share application money were in violation of section 13(1)(d) and not in accordance with section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the benefits under sections 11 and 12 were denied, leading to the assessment being done under the normal provisions of the Act.

2. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on assets acquired in previous years and did not allow capital expenditure on fixed assets, resulting in a higher assessed income for the assessee. The entrance fee, which was not accounted for in the income and expenditure account, was added to the total income for computation purposes. The income was then taxed at the maximum marginal rate under section 164(2).

3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue questioned the permissibility of the investments made by the assessee and the applicability of government directions in such investments. The arguments put forth by both parties were considered, with the Revenue asserting that the investments were not in compliance with the law, while the assessee cited previous judgments and the objectives of the investments to support their case.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and previous judgments related to the case, including observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Court's observations highlighted the nature of the investments made by the assessee and the context of government policy. The Tribunal found that the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were legally sound and upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, noting that the Revenue had failed to present any new evidence or legal arguments to warrant a different outcome.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee based on the legal analysis and precedents cited during the proceedings.