2018 (9) TMI 1096 - HC - Income Tax

Denying the benefits of section 11 and 12 - proof of charitable activities - adherence to charitable objects - Held that - The issues / questions raised in the present Appeals are concluded against the Department, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation 2017 (7) TMI 811 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , in the case of the very assessee, but with respect to the earlier assessment years as held that considering the objects and purpose for which the assessee-Corporation is established and constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 and collection of fees or cess is incidental to the object and purpose of the Act, and even the case would not fall under the second part of proviso to Section 2 15 of the IT Act. As the activities of the assessee is for advancement of any other object of general public utility, the same can be for charitable purpose - decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for multiple assessment years.
2. Disallowance of benefits under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance of premium on land and shades.
4. Re-examination of depreciation allowance.
5. Carry forward and set off of deficit against current year's income.
6. Disallowance of unpaid leave encashment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner appealed against the common order dated 10.11.2017 by the ITAT for various assessment years. The primary questions of law raised were related to the denial of benefits under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal, contradicting the findings of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal was also questioned for giving benefits under Section 11 and 12, which were initially disallowed by invoking Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act.

2. The issue of disallowance of a significant amount on account of premium on land and shades was raised. The Appellate Tribunal set aside this issue back to the Assessing Officer, considering the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, questioning whether it was justified in setting aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

3. Another issue involved the re-examination of depreciation allowance by the Assessing Officer. The Appellate Tribunal set aside this issue for reconsideration, citing the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was questioned for setting aside the issue and not upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer.

4. The matter of carry forward and set off of deficits from earlier years against the current year's income and subsequent years was also disputed. The Appellate Tribunal set this issue back to the Assessing Officer, considering Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was challenged for not upholding the decision of the CIT(A) on merits.

5. Lastly, the issue of disallowance in respect of unpaid leave encashment was raised. The Appellate Tribunal set aside this issue back to the Assessing Officer, citing the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was questioned for not upholding the decision of the CIT(A) on merits.

6. The respondent's advocate pointed out that the issues raised in the present appeals were already concluded against the Department based on a previous decision of the Division Bench of the Court in a related case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present appeals as the issues were already settled against the Department.