9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the pharmacy. He has referred to the gross profit and expenditure. It appears that at the time of argument before the Tribunal, this contention was not specifically argued as this has not been separately addressed in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is not alleged in the grounds of appeal that the contention was raised but not answered or noticed. As recorded above, full details of the sales made by the pharmacy and also details of the medicines purchased etc. were available. The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) had made calculations. We do not see any reason to re-examine the factual narration and the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the respondent assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AA. The appeal is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, keeping in view the quantum, is justified and is not perverse. The amount involved is too meagre and does not show or establish that the respondent society was meant for benefit of any particular community. (ii) The respondent society had sold medicines from their pharmacy to the public. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) held that this amounts to business. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) has also stated that the respondent society had earned and operated the pharmacy at 50% profit margin. Tribunal has rejected the said contention observing that the respondent society was/is a hospital and has to dispense medicines to patients. Selling of medicines was not the predominant object of the respondent society and was only incidental. Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ielded profit did not alter the charitable character of the assessee.? (iii) Director of Income Tax (Exemption) has observed that the respondent society received ₹ 10,000/- per procedure, from an international organization for Smile Surgery Project. This amounts to commercial activity. Tribunal, on the other hand, has found that the respondent had conducted operations or correction surgery on children born with cleft lips and palate. An international organization had paid ₹ 8,000 to ₹ 10,000/- for each surgery performed, though the actual amount incurred on the surgery could be less. The Tribunal has observed that this did not show commercial or business activity, as alleged. We notice that the patients who underwent surge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uipment. Tribunal has observed that the said occurrence had taken place in the year 1990. The import in question is certainly distant in point of time as the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) was passed on 28.12.2011. Whether or not there was any violation of import conditions, is pending consideration before the Tribunal and the matter is still subjudice. There is no final affirmative finding against the respondent society. (vii) On the question of alteration in Memorandum of Association and communication to the Revenue authorities, the Tribunal has examined the changes/amendments and held that these were minor in nature and did not detract or alter the main/basic purpose which was to provide medical relief. 3. Learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
