9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Trust Deed to take unsecured loans. Moreover, it is not in dispuse that the unsecured loans taken in earlier years were duly reflected in the books maintained by the assessee and though prior approval was not obtained, the assessee had, in fact, subsequently applied for approval from the Charity Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner has neither granted approval nor initiated any proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to get the permission of the Charity Commissioner to raise loans for the trust in violation of provisions of section 36(3) of the Bombay Public Trust Act without considering the decision of the Bombay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed as application of income and further allowance of repayment of loan as application of income would result in double deduction for the same outgoing which is against the principles laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India 199 ITR 443 ? 2. So far as question (a) is concerned, the relevant facts are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been granted under section 12AA of the Act, the exemption under Section 11 cannot be withdrawn unless there is violation of provisions of Section 13 of the Act or the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act is cancelled. The Tribunal held that the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Pruthivi Trust [1980] 124 ITR 488 is distinguishable on facts as the Trust in that case was car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue. 3. So far questions (b) & (c) are concerned, counsel for the parties agree that the issue arising herein are covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to entertain questions (b) & (c). 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
