2005 (6) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to holding that initial listing fees of Rs. 21.30 lakhs received by the Exchange is in the nature of revenue receipt as against the claim of the appellant that it is in the nature of capital receipt. 2. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the assessee has appended a note below the computation of total income that the admission fees amounting to Rs. 4,43,00,000 and initial listing fees of Rs. 21,30,000 received during the year has been treated as capital receipt and as such not included in the income in view of Hon ble Bombay High Court decision in case of CIT v. W.I.A.A. Club Ltd. [1982] 136 ITR 569. However, the assessee s plea has not been accepted by the Department. In assessm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . v. ITO [1995] 54 ITD 589 (Jp.), where the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. ( supra ) and Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. s case ( supra ) were followed. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby sustained for the reasons mentioned in his order where he has rightly treated the admission fees and initial listing fees as revenue in nature. Thus, the Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the assessee are dismissed. Ground No. 3: The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the benefit of accumulation of income to the extent of 25 per cent of such income under section 11(1)( a ) is subject to section 13(1)( d ) of the I.T. Act which requires that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce of conditions as referred in section 11(2)( a ) and section 11(2)( b ) of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, there is no requirement under the Act for investment of accumulation of income in specified modes to the extent of 25 per cent of such income under section 11(1)( a ) of the Act. This view finds support in the decision of S.RM.M.CT.M. Tiruppani Trust v. CIT (Inv.) [1998] 230 ITR 636 (SC) and the relevant para of this decision at page 642 reads as under : "In the case of Addl. CIT v. ALN Rao Charitable Trust [1995] 216 ITR 697, this Court considered the provisions of section 11(1)( a ) in the light of section 11(2) and held that section 11(2) does not in any manner restrict the operation of section 11(1). The accumulated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X