9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antial questions of law. 3. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the IT Act') was amended with effect from the assessment year 2008-2009 and the assessee admittedly does not fall in the definition of the term 'trust' as defined in the said Section. 4. It is in these circumstances, the Assessing Officer was right in concluding that benefit of the provision invoked, namely, Section 11 cannot be granted. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in reversing that order and the specific finding that no exemption can be claimed in respect of such receipts as is sought to be claimed on the principle of mutuality and therefore, the principle invoked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not as a trust and denied benefit of Section 11 of the IT Act. These were the main grounds of Appeal being ground nos. 1 and 2 and in the event they are not sustained, then ground no. 3 was an alternate and without prejudice ground. 10. However, in relation to ground nos. 1 and 2, the First Appellate Authority scrutinized the finding of the Assessing Officer, particularly that the predominant object of the Gymkhana is to provide services to its members and to some extent, such facilities are also provided to nonmembers. The Assessing Officer noted that the contributors are the members and participants in the sport activities. Thus, the beneficiaries are same, and therefore, the principle of mutuality can be applied. Thus applied, the Gym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntially the finding and conclusion on the main ground nos. 1 and 2 of the assessee's memorandum of Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal noted that these grounds have already been dealt with, and on facts, findings have been recorded against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Once the orders of the Tribunal to that effect have been upheld by this Court and no factual distinction being brought on record for the assessment year in question, the Tribunal followed and applied the earlier orders to the assessment year in question/under consideration. We do not see any reason to interfere with such an order of the Tribunal. It does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The findings are essentially on f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
