9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on should be put to the word by the Court. No further submission was advanced by Mr. Agarwal. We find no substance in the submission, which, he already advanced and, therefore, the is answered in the affirmative in favour of assessee - ITP 120 of 1996 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2016 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Indrajit Chatterjee, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr M P Agarwal, Adv For the Respondents : Mr S K Kapoor, Sr. Adv. with Mr J P Khaitan, Sr. Adv, Mr Dilip Dhar, Adv, Mr Ravi Kapoor, Adv., Ms Swati Agarwal, Adv. Ms Natasha Roy, Adv ORDER The Court: Both for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under Section 10(22A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al facility allegedly advanced by the assessee were aimed at helping the employees of the sister concerns. There was no philanthropic activity nor did assessee exist solely for philanthropic purposes. Therefore, the benefit under Section 10(22A) could not have been advanced to them. Mr. Kapoor, learned senior advocate appearing for the assessee, submitted that the Tribunal has allowed the benefit of Section 10(22A) to the assessee for the following amongst other reasons:- The main objects of the assessee which are clearly brought out in Memorandum of Association are all solely for philanthropic purposes and not for profit. The assessee has also not violated its objects. The exemption also cannot be denied to the assessee on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, which provides as follows:- (22A) any income of a hospital or other institution for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness or for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation, existing solely for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit; Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate for the revenue, submitted that the institution contemplated under Section 10(22A), quoted above, has to be a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act. He added that a private company was not contemplated by section 10(22A). This submission, according to us, is without any merit as would appear from sub-section (1) of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
