Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ond round before the Tribunal. It shall be relevant to recount the background facts of the case. The assessee, a public trust, under the Public Trust Act, 1950, is registered as a charitable institution u/s.12A(a) of the Act. It functions through its two Wings, namely, a Hospital and a Research Centre; the latter being a notified research institution u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act. The income of the research wing, for which separate accounts are being maintained, was claimed exempt u/s. 10(21) of the Act. In assessment, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) noted that the approval u/s. 35(1)(ii) to the assessee's research centre was only up to 31.03.2002. There was, accordingly, no question of the assessee being allowed the benefit of exemption u/s. 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here had occurred a mistake apparent from record in the tribunal's order dated 20.03.2013 (supra) in-as-much as the tribunal had assumed that exemption u/s.10(21) was not an issue before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee had in fact furnished the extension of approval u/s. 35(1)(ii), i.e., beyond 31.03.2002, since granted, before the first appellate authority, and who had duly noted the same. The assessee's alternate contention of being allowed exemption u/s.11 has also been denied. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's claims. Accordingly, vide order u/s.254(2) dated 16.01.2015 (in MA No. 381/Mum/2014/copy on record), it recalled its order (for the current year) for the limited purpose of deciding the issue of assessee's en .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion for approval there-under stands since rejected, holding, after an analysis of the assessee's facts and figures, indicative of and including the manner of its functioning, that the assessee is not an institution existing solely for philanthropic purposes and not for profit and, accordingly, denied approval there-under vide the said order. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Our mandate, being derived from the order u/s.254(2), which has attained finality, recalling the assessee's appeal for the limited purpose, is for deciding on the maintainability or otherwise in law of the exemption u/s.10(21) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee without allowing a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer as provided in Rule 46A of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962.' The same stood accepted by the tribunal; the relevant part of its order dated 03.07.2007 reading as under: '17. We heard both sides in detail and considered the matter. The grounds no. 1, 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue in this appeal are not in fact arising even out of the assessment order. Even though the Assessing Officer has stated his reasons to bring the assessee out of the ambit of section 10(21), he himself has ultimately granted the deduction, as assessee was notified u/s.35(1)(ii). We have also considered the observations regarding audited accounts, which are not supported by his own order. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the satisfaction or otherwise of those conditions, and proceeds, as afore-stated, on the basis of the matter being covered by the tribunal's order for the earlier years, and which is definitely not the case. The Revenue, on its part, has brought on record the copy of the order u/s.10(23C)(via) dated 31.12.2008 (for A.Ys. 1999-2000 to 2007-08) by the prescribed authority, refusing the approval there-under to the assessee, claiming it to have a bearing in the matter. The same, we observe, contains findings on the aspect of the surcharge @ 20% on the bills issued to the indoor patients, and transferring the same, as also 25% of the fees paid to the doctors, to the corpus fund, even as the same are not in the nature of donations. These fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates