9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inancial year. We, accordingly, set aside the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2036/KOL/ 2010 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Shri S.V. Mehrotra and Shri Mahavir Singh, JJ. For The Assessee : Sri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel and Sri Sanjay Bhowmik, Advocate, For The Respondent : Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. D.R., ORDER Per S.V. Mehrotra: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Kolkata dated 10.09.2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following effective grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had total income of ₹ 17,66,21,082/- which was derived from Tution fees, Admission fees, Development fees, Maintnance fees, Examination fees, Miscellaneous fees, Library/Bus/Computer/Laboratory fees and Annual charges. There was income from interest and dividends also. The expenses had been claimed at ₹ 16,90,81,042/-. Apart from this, there were capital expenditures to the tune of ₹ 44,30,340/-. After considering the assessee s submission, the Assessing Officer determined the total income at ₹ 47,81,423/- as detailed below:- Income as per Income Expenditure account Less: Statutory accumulation @ 15% of ₹ 17,66,21,082/- Rs.17,66,21,082/- ₹ 2,64,93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill pending before the Hon ble Calcutta High Court. Therefore, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee does not survive and hence, is being dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Now coming to the main issue, which was raised before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee had submitted that the assessment under section 11 of the Act was not complete in as much as the Assessing Officer did not give effect to the provisions of section 11(1A) of the Act in framing the assessment. The assessee in its written submission had pointed out that it was evident from the assessee s balance-sheet and income expenditure account read with schedules 4 and 11 thereto that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee disposed of some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alled for in which the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee s contention to the extent of ₹ 67,54,288/-. However, in respect of reinvestment which was not held as capital asset up to the end of the year i.e. 31.03.2007, the Assessing Officer denied the assessee s claim. The main contention of the Assessing Officer was that exemption under section 11 was not allowable to the assessee for capital gain to the extent of ₹ 1,34,233/- earned on sale of DSP Merrill Lynch Mutual Fund dated 04.08.2006 and 22.08.2006 because the FDs in which the sale proceeds of these mutual fund units were invested got matured on 20.10.2006 which was before the end of the previous year under consideration. 8. The moot point for consideration is whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part only for such purposes, is transferred and the whole or any part of the net consideration is utilized for acquiring another capital asset to be so held, then, the appropriate fraction of the capital gain arising from the transfer shall be deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes to be extent specified hereunder, namely- (i) Where the whole of the net consideration is utilized in acquiring the new capital asset, the whole of the appropriate fraction of such capital gain; (ii) In any other case, so much of the appropriate fraction of the capital gain as is equal to the amount, if any, by which the appropriate fraction of the amount utilized for acquiring the new asset exceeds the appropriate fraction of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
