9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us Matriseva Trust [1999 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS High Court] held that excess of expenditure over income in one year can be set off in subsequent year against the income u/s 11 as and by way of application of income. Respectfully following the aforementioned Hon’ble High Courts and specifically Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court,find no infirmity in the conclusion of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and affirmed the same. - Decided against revenue - ITA No.3774/Mum/2015, ITA No.3788/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2016 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member For The Revenue : Shri A.K.Dhondial JCIT-DR For The Assessee : Ms. Arati Vissanji ORDER The Revenue as well as the assessee are in cross appeal against the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded that no specific ground has been raised, hence, no decision was given by rejecting the submission of the assessee. In view of this fact, I am of the view that as per Article -265 of Constitution of India, the authorities are to levy and collect due taxes, therefore, since, no grievance is caused to either side, I remand this ground to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the submissions of the assessee. The assessee is also directed to raise a specific ground so that the same can be disposed of in accordance with law in the light of the case laws cited by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. 3. So far as, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous year. So far as, the word applied, in this context, means that the income is actually applied for charitable or religious purposes. The word applied need not necessarily imply (spent). Even an amount is irretrievably year marked and allocated for charitable or religious purposes, it may be said to have been applied to the purposes. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. CIT vs Radhaswamy Satsang Sabha (1954) 25 ITR 472 (All.) ii. CIT vs HEH the Nizam Charitable Trust (1981) 131 ITR 497(AP) iii. Nachi Muthu Industrial Association vs CIT (1999) 235 ITR 190 (SC), iv. CIT vs Thanthi Trust (1982) 137 ITR 735 (Mad.), v. CIT vs Thanthi Trust (1999) 239 ITR 502 (SC) 3.2. Under section 11( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he light of the aforesaid discussions/judicial pronouncements. The facts, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer denied carried forward of deficit of ₹ 47,57,38,232/- of earlier years being excess of application of income over the income of the trust. The assessee in view of the aforesaid decisions, claimed that carried forward to be allowed to be set off. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the brought forward deficit of earlier years and also to allow carry forward of aggregate deficit to succeeding year after verification. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. Under the facts narrated hereinabove, the Hon ble jurisidictional High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
