9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on which those grants-in-aid were given, it was obvious that the institutions or associations to which the grant was made had no right to ask for the grant and it was solely within the discretion of the Government to make grants to institutions of a charitable nature. Again, the Government did not expect any return for the grants given by it to such institutions and there was nothing which was required to be done by these institutions for the Government, which could be considered as consideration for the grant. Therefore, none of the conditions attached to the grant affected the voluntary nature of the contribution. Hence, the impugned grant was exempt under section 12. Therefore, we admit under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s return of income for A.Y. 2010 11 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. During the course of assessment for the impugned assessment year, the AO found that the assessee had spent the following amount outside India. Particulars Amount spent outside India (Rs.) Global Textile Fair, Los Angeles USA , April 2009 6,96,155/- Tex World Fair, Paris, September,2009 4,96,599/- ATF Fair, Capetown, South Africa, November,2009 7,41,968/- Heim Textile Fair, Germany,January,2010 8,31,086/- Textile World Fair,Paris, February,2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits before us that the decision relied on by the AO and ld. CIT(A) are different from the case of the assessee in the following manner. India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) is not an Export Promotion Council. It did not get any grants from Government to organize an exhibition abroad. It got funds from Engineering Export Promotion Council to hold the exhibition abroad. IBEF was not liable to refund the unspent amount to any authorities as against the appellant company is bound to refund the entire amount of grants if not utilized as per the directions of the Government. The Council is an Export Promotion Council, whose main objects are to promote the exports in the field of silk and its allied products, whereas the case of IBEF and NASC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for A.Y. 2007-08) stating that the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in DIT vs. M/s The Gem Jewellery Export Promotion Council [ITA (LOD) No. 1113 of 2010] and allowed exemption u/s 11 to the assessee. The ld. counsel submits that facts being similar, the assessee-trust in the instant case is also entitled to exemption u/s 11 by following the referred decision of the jurisdictional High Court. 5.3 An alternative argument is made by the ld. counsel of the assessee stating that all grants received with specific directions do not form or fall within the definition voluntary contribution and hence not liable to taxed . He states that the issue has been clearly brought out in the following decisions. (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue of holding exhibition is there. But the issue of holding exhibition outside India is not apparent from the order. 7.1 We find that the alternative argument advanced by the ld. counsel of the assessee has got a direct bearing on the instant case . The ld counsel of the assessee has relied inter-alia on the judgement of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council(supra), wherein it has been held: It was well known that the grants-in-aid were made by the Government to provide certain institutions with sufficient funds to carry on their charitable activities. On reading the conditions on which those grants-in-aid were given, it was obvious that the institutions or associations to which the grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
