9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Registration No. INS. 556 dtd. 18-8-1977 and registered vide No. F-39 (Bom.) dtd. 7-4-1953 with Charity Commissioner. The assessee has got approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the I.T. Act approved by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vide order dtd. 5-3-2008 valid from A.Y. 2008-09 and onwards until withdrawn. The return was filed declaring total income at Rs. nil . However, the assessment was completed at an income of ₹ 4,19,88,831/- vide assessment order dtd. 31-12-2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Ground No. 1 2 read as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts of NMIMS which are audited to. Similar records are maintained for each MDP. The reliance was also placed on the decision in in Jaypee Institute of Information Technology vs. DGIT (Exemption), 185 Taxman 110. However, the A.O. observed that activity of conducting Management Development Programmes and providing consultancy services is not education in itself, as defined by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust vs. CIT, (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC) even though it is incidental to its main activity of providing business education. He further observed that since it is an organised systematic activity, it can be called business incidental to the main object of the trust. He further observed that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Delhi Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Jesuit Conference of India (2010) 40 DTR (Del) (Tribunal) 493 and accordingly he held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 11(4A) of the Act in respect of MDP. As regards the income from hiring of premises and advertisement rights, the ld. CIT(A) observed that various halls and properties are given on hire when they are not required for education purpose of the Institute i.e. on Saturdays and Sundays or on public holidays. He further observed that income from these rentals are applied towards the educational purpose of the Institute and, hence, eligible to claim exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) after relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Andhra Chambe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to exemption u/s 11(4A) of the Act if separate books of accounts are maintained by the assessee in respect of such business, rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that except ledger account, no separate books of accounts are maintained. However, on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) while observing that the it is not correct to say that the assessee is not maintaining separate books of accounts held that since the element of business is missing in conducting Management Courses, the assessee cannot be said to be conducting any business just because of the fact that there is some surplus in the hands of the assessee which itself is applied towards the attainment of object of the educational institute and not for the personal benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly provided by law, in addition to normal deduction. 11. Brief facts of the above issue are that the A.O. observed that the depreciation is not allowable to the assessee because 100% cost has been claimed as deduction towards application of funds and in support reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). On appeal the ld. CIT(A) while distinguishing the decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra) relied on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom) directed the A.O. to allow depreciation on the same. 12. At the time of hearing the ld. D.R. while relying on the order of the A.O. also relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishram Bhavan Trust (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj) (ix) CIT vs. Raipur Pallottine Society (1989) 180 ITR 579 (MP). He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 14. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute. In the present case the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been held by the Revenue Authorities. The income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee is only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purpose of Trust. Thus there is no double deduction claimed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
