9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 was admittedly filed before the A.O. on 7.10.2011 which is much before the completion of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thus, in view of the above stated dictum of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and that of the Hon'ble Apex Court the A.O. cannot deny deduction u/s 11(2) of the Act to this assessee. Therefore, we confirm this finding of the ld. CIT(A). Further, the assessee-society has claimed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act and not u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act as the receipts of the assessee-society are from treatment given to the persons suffering from illness on charitable considerations. The assessee society is substantially found financed by the State Government, which fact has been verified by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The A.O. found that out of the total receipts of ₹ 7,52,52,002/-, the assessee-society has spent only ₹ 5,22,97,678/- during the relevant year which amounts to 69.5% of the receipts and has set apart the remaining amount. In case the assessee has to set apart receipts more than 15%, it has to declare in Form No. 10 upto the last date on which the return u/s 139(1) of the Act can be filed. In this case, such a notice was given on 7.10.2011 which was beyond the permitted time. Therefore, the A.O. has not allowed the exemption qua this amount as per provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for setting apart the receipts which were not spent during the year. The A.O. has accepted capital expenditure of ₹ 73,43,708/- after depr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was fair and just in allowing the deduction u/ 11(2) of the I.T. Act as the assessee has filed Form No. 10 much before the date of completion of assessment on 20.12.2011. The same is allowable as held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case at 208 ITR 568 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported at 247 ITR 201 [SC].. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was fair and just in allowing the claim of unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2008-09 amounting to ₹ 88,26,657/- to the extent of income available. The same deserves to be upheld. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was fair and just in allowi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llness on charitable considerations. The assessee society is substantially found financed by the State Government, which fact has been verified by the A.O. and has not been rejected by him. The State Government employees are executive office bearers of the society and its doctors, nurses and other staff are paid by the State Government itself. Therefore, we do not find much substance in Ground No. 3 of revenue s appeal. Further, set off of unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years could be allowed from income from other sources even if the assessee had no income falling u/s 28 of the Act. Accordingly, the entire addition made by the A.O. have been correctly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any force in G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
