9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report under s. 12A(b). The ITO noticing that the assessee was not registered under s. 12A(a) of the IT Act, 1961 with the CIT, Delhi II, held that it could not claim exemption under s. 11. The ITO took the view that the object of the assessee was not the advancement of an object of general public utility but it was subservient to the interest of certain have of the society. He also took the view that if the sources having been drawn from the activities of sale and subscription, advertisement fee, listing fee, etc., which were of a commercial nature, the main object of the assessee could not be held to be the promotion of hotel industry. He, therefore, held that the purpose of the assessee was not a charitable purpose as so defined in s. 2( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by which the Department's Reference Applications were rejected. Reference was also made by him to the order dt.13th Oct., 1986of the Tribunal in the appeals for the above assessment years with reference to which reference applications were filed by the Department. He pointed out that for the subsequent asst. yr. 1984-85, the CIT(A) vide his order dt.19th Nov., 1987, had upheld the claim of exemption under s. 11 and had further held that s. 28(iii) was not required to be invoked in the assessee's case. He further pointed out that the application dt.29th May, 1986of the assessee under s. 12A was pending with the CBDT who had intimated the assessee vide its letter dt. 27th Aug., 1987 that the CIT, Delhi-IV was to be approached in that matter a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CED it was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that a provision in a fiscal statute intended for the benefit of a tax-payer had to be construed liberally in favour of tax payers with a view to ensure the benefit and not in a narrow, pedantic manner with an eye to deprice all the benefits. In the case of Madras Stock Exchange it was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that the assessee was not carrying on any business as the various activities carried on by it such as completion of the year-book and publication of market reports, were only as a kind of amenity for the benefit of the brokers and the public. In the case of Workmen C.P. Trust vs. Board of Trustees it was held by the Supreme Court that the principle of resjudication also cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired under s. 12A. In view of the above decisions as applicable to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the assessee having been held to be entitled to exemption under s. 11 for the previous asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1980-81, it was entitled to claim exemption under s. 11 in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal referred to above since the application for registration under s. 12A was pending and had not been rejected. It is also relevant to mention that even for the subsequent asst. yr. 1984-85, the learned CIT(A) had himself accepted the existence of charitable purpose under s. 2(15) and had held that s. 28(iii) could not be invoked in the assessee's case. Having regard to the above finding the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
