9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER R. S. PADVEKAR, JM: In this batch of three appeals the Revenue has challenged the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-I, Mumbai for the Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. The Revenue has taken the following effective grounds which are also identical in other appeals: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT (A), M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed its return of income claiming exemption u/s.11 of the I.T. Act, 1961, but the same was denied. As in the opinion of the A.O., the assesse s council is organising trade fairs which is a dominant business activity. Hence the benefit of the exemption was denied to the assessee. The A.O. held that the activities undertaken by the assessee s council ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judgement of Hon'ble High Court which is placed on record. The Ld. CIT DR fairly conceded that the issue of the exemption u/s.11 is now covered in favour of the assessee as submitted by the Ld. Counsel. We find that the Hon'ble High Bombay Court has confirmed the order of the Tribunal in assesse s own case. The Hon'ble High Court has framed the following two substantial questions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions of Section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act cannot be faulted. Moreover, the Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that the assessee has maintained separate books of account in respect of exhibition activity. In this view of the matter, the first question raised by the revenue cannot be entertained. 4. As regards second question is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
