9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant- revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 6.2.2015, Annexure A.3 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, 'B', Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No.601/Chd/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 claiming following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in both law and fact in allowing exemption under section 12 of the Act to the assessee by following the order of learned CIT(A), Shimla? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in holding that specific purpose donations are voluntary contributions in the hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its counsel appeared and filed reply. After considering the reply, while the Assessing Officer acknowledged utilization amounting to Rs. 38,29,20,160/- out of the earmarked funds during the year under consideration, he allowed expenditure of Rs. 21,36,235/- only to the appellant adopting the FIFO method clubbing the opening accumulated balance with the funds received during the year. The utilization out of the earmarked funds was 196.90% during the year under consideration and 87.07% out of the other corpus funds. According to the Assessing Officer, there was deficiency in application of fund for charitable purposes during the year under assessment amounting to Rs. 15,47,22,732/- and the same was added back to the taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal in this Court on the ground that the assessee respondent had requested for transfer of the case from Bangalore to Gurgaon on 02.01.2002 and the case was transferred from Bangalore to Gurgaon on 20.05.2005 under Section 127 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court, while repelling the aforesaid contention had noticed as under: "The decision of the High Courts are binding on the subordinate Courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction but it does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction. In other words, the decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent for another High Court or for Courts or Tribunals outside its territorial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te to a Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to an Assessing Officer who is not subordinate to the same Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. The aforementioned situation and the definition of expression 'case' in relation to jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer is quite understandable but it has got nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal or High Courts merely because Section 127 of the Act dealing with transfer has been incorporated in the same chapter. Therefore, the argument raised is completely devoid of substance and we have no hesitation to reject the same. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed by sustaining the preliminary objection that this Court has no te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
