9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. Therefore, the exemption should have been allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - GA 4446/2004; ITA 848/2004 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2015 - GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ARINDAM SINHA, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. For The Respondent : Mr. R. Sinha, Adv. with Mr. Nizamuddin, Adv. The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated May 26, 2004, passed by the learned Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) pertaining to the assessment year 1996-97. The questions of law were formulated at the time of admission of the appeal which are set out below: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the learned Tribunal was justified in the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally applied for charity. It may be mentioned that the trust is allowed to save 25% of the income as unconditional accumulation for the purpose of the trust. The recital in the option exercised U/s. 11(2) as investment in immovable property for establishing, maintaining the object of education, relief, medical etc. in itself is not specific and concrete but carries with it sufficient vagueness in respect of the true purpose of accumulation. The specific , concrete and itemised are indicative of very clear identification of purpose for which option U/s. 11(2) has to be exercised to enjoy exemption U/s. 11. On the other hand, the option should be such as to meet the contingency where the fulfilment of any project within the object needs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outlay to call for accumulation to amass sufficient money to implement it. Therefore, specification of purpose as required by section 11(2) admits of no amount of vagueness about such purpose. On facts, what had happened in that case was that there were 28 charitable objects of the trust. In the option under section 11(2), it was stated that the accumulation was made for all or any of the aforesaid 28 purposes. It is in that perspective that the Division Bench held that the purpose of accumulation had not been itemised. Mr. Sen rightly contended that the judgment in the case of the trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust, relied upon by Mr. Sinha, has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of this case because in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
