9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the assessee has clarified that the musical nights were performed by renowned artists who did not take any remuneration from the trust and the main intension of organizing such programmes was to reduce the stress level of the patients and their relatives, therefore, under these circumstances denial of exemption u/s.11 in our opinion is not warranted. The Ld.CIT(A) has properly appreciated the facts and rejected the objection of the AO on this issue by giving valid reasons which in our opinion is proper and justified. Next objection of the AO that the assessee had received donations from the patients in lieu of medical services rendered for which he has given examples such as Mr. Dilip Nayakude, Mrs. Kavita Waghle and Mr. Rajesh Deepak etc. We find the assessee has conclusively proved before us that the donation given by the above persons are much less than the concession given to them. Since the CIT(A) has rejected the objection of the AO after considering the various evidences furnished by the assessee before him wherein the above persons had clarified that they had given donations to the assessee trust on their own will and since the AO in the remand proceedings also cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ninawe ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : The above 2 appeals filed by the revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 30-03-2012 and 23-01-2013 of the CIT(A) I, Pune relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. For the sake of convenience both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.2046/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) : 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust and is running a Hospital under the name and style of Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, Erandwane, Pune. It filed its return of income on 30-09-2008 declaring total income of NIL. The return was accompanied with statement of total income, audited balance sheet and income and expenditure account for the year ended on 31-03- 2008 and Form No.10B. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO asked the assessee to submit the information on following points : 1. Details of patients treated at concessional rate/free with proof. 2. Percentage of free/concessional patients out of total patients. 3. Criteria applied for treating patients at concessional rate/free. 4. Comparative chart of rates charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to explain as to why exemption u/s.11 should not be denied to the trust. 6. The various reasons given by the AO in the said show cause notice inter alia included the following violations which has been summarized by the Ld.CIT(A) at Page 8 of his order : 1(a) Gross receipts shown to the Charity Commissioner from hospital fees of ₹ 21.09 crores is lesser than the actual receipt of ₹ 72.03 crores, which has resulted into undercrediting of ₹ 51.09 lakhs only in the IPF fund. The Assessing Officer further pointed out that the actual payment of ₹ 66.06 lakhs shown by you from the IPF fund was lesser than the actual amount you were required to spend of ₹ 1.44 crores being 2% of ₹ 72.31 crores. (b) The inspection report of Jt. Charity Commissioner dated 23.12.2009 clearly shows that 10% of beds for indigent patients and another 10% for weaker section has not been done in your hospital. The Assessing Officer further stated that the number of beds shown to Charity Commissioner was 288 only, whereas the same in the activity report submitted during scrutiny was shown at 450. On that basis the Assessing Officer charged the appellant that the num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer has stated that letters were addressed to some of the donors after obtaining donor s addresses etc. from the assessee and two persons i.e. Mrs. Sujata Nayakude and Mr. Amit S. Wagale have replied that the husband and the mother of the respective persons were under treatment at the hospital under ESI scheme and the difference of the bills raised by the hospital and the reimbursement from the ESI were given as donations, for which receipts u/s 80G were issued. The Assessing Officer further stated in this context that the members of Shah family, namely Lata Shah, Sharadbhai Shah, Sharmila Shah, Satyashil Shah and Ragini Shah, have paid ₹ 3,000 each to the foundation for participating in the medical check up project called Shwas wherein health check up along with Yoga teaching were done. The Assessing Officer therefore, charged the appellant to have camouflaged the hospital receipts for providing medical services as donations. 4. In the aforesaid show cause notice the Assessing Officer thereafter pointed out that payments of ₹ 90,000 as honorarium to Mrs. Meena Kelkar, mother of one of the trustees and ₹ 3,60,000, as salary to Mr. Sachin Kshirsagar, broth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crores and the assessee should have spent this amount on the indigent and weaker section patients. As against this the assessee claimed to have spent only ₹ 66 lakhs. Thus, there is clear shortfall of ₹ 74 lakhs in the amount to be expended for the IPF weaker section patients as stipulated by the Charity Commissioner. 8. As regards the submission of the assessee that as per their understanding of the IPF scheme the gross billing of the scheme does not include OPD fees, general ward fees and hospital drugs, doctor s fees etc., the AO held that there is no ambiguity in the meaning and any lay person will infer that it is inclusive of medical receipts. He further noted that the working given by the trust is also absurd because from the amount as per income and expenditure account of ₹ 72.31 crores, they have deducted OPD fees of ₹ 14.72 crores, canteen of ₹ 0.3 crores, Pharmacy ₹ 3.3 crores etc. The total receipts from the canteen are ₹ 2.28 crores and from the pharmacy ₹ 12.73 crores. Therefore, it is not understood as to why only ₹ 0.3 crores from canteen and ₹ 3.3 crores from the pharmacy are reduced from ₹ 72. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as received donations from the patients in lieu of medical services rendered. He referred to some of the donations received from the patients such as Dilip Nayakude, ₹ 5,100/- Smt. Kavita Wagle ₹ 9,000/- and Shri Rajesh Phadke ₹ 2,000/- etc. According to the AO these receipts are in the nature of medical fees and not voluntary donations as explained in the show cause notice. He, however, noted that the assessee had issued donation receipts to the patients and claimed deduction u/s.80G. 13. As regards the donations received from Shah family is concerned, it was explained by the assessee that these payments were received as donations for the Shwas project. However, the AO noted that these people had participated in the project/camp and paid for the services taken. According to the AO a voluntary donation has to be made out of one s volition and should be unconditional. However, from the list of the donors he noted that they have participated in the camps and made payment. Therefore, it is nothing but fees in the garb of donation. In some of the case, the AO further noted that each one of them has paid ₹ 3,000/- as donation. Had it been voluntary the figure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o patients and that the musical nights are organized only for the benefits of the patients, relatives, staff and consultants etc. was rejected by the AO on the ground that hospital is a place where calm and quiet is required. According to the AO musical nights may not be of any help. Even if they are helpful it is only the private room patients who will have access to T.Vs and the general ward and other patients will not have the benefits. The AO further held that even if music supports the inputs of medicines and medical service, selected music can be played throughout the day and there is no need to organize musical nights. The AO also noted that the assessee has received rent from Bharti Airtel for erection of tower in the hospital premises which amounts to commercial exploitation of the hospital property. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and distinguishing the various decisions relied on by the assessee the AO denied the exemption claimed u/s.11 of the I.T. Act and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 11,34,45,230/- by observing as under : 13. To sum up, the assessee is running the hospital with an intention of making profit as is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered to be falling under the following 2 categories, i.e. (a) that the activities of the assessee trust are not charitable in nature, (b) the assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) by making payments to Mrs. Meena Kelkar and Mrs. Bharati Mangeshkar. 15.1 As regards the objection of the AO that activities of the assessee trust are not charitable in nature he noted that the AO has based his opinion on the ground that there is higher profit margin, violation of conditions prescribed in Bombay Public Trust Act, discrepancy in the report submitted to the Charity Commissioner, non fulfillment of conditions prescribed by the Bombay High Court and Charity Commissioner under the BPT Act to allocate 2% of the hospital collections to IPF and 10% of operational beds each to indigent category and weaker section category. He further noted that concession of ₹ 5.2 crores claimed by the assessee to have been given to poor in fact has mainly been given to persons of middle class, who can afford payment, higher profit from running of canteen, accepting deposits from different persons, rental income from Airtel and organizing musical nights etc. Further, according t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee trust had provided for the shortfall in the subsequent year. Further the shortfall computed by the Charity Commissioner was much less than the shortfall computed by the AO. 19. As regards the objection of the AO that the assessee is running a canteen on a commercial basis, the CIT(A) noted that the profit on running the canteen was incidental to the main objects of the trust. Further, according to the Ld.CIT(A) the rates charged are quite low. He observed that the actual surplus from the canteen activity was ₹ 18.95 lakhs and not ₹ 78.81 lakhs as computed by the AO. He further observed that the assessee has maintained separate books of account and therefore the condition of section 11(4A) has been fulfilled. 20. As regards the objection of the AO that the assessee has issued donation receipts while actually the assessee trust had rendered service to the various persons to whom donation receipts were issued, the CIT(A) noted that there is no justification for arriving at such a conclusion. He observed that the AO had recorded the statements of few persons without granting any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same. He considered the evidences fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trust which is a commercial exploitation of its property the CIT(A) held that the same is for supplementing the main object of the assessee trust. He accepted the contention of the assessee that the space for tower was provided which helped in augmenting the signal for telecommunication for the patients and their wards and the receipt of rent was incidental to the main activity. 26. As regards the objection of the AO that assessee has organized musical nights and gazal nights which is nothing but entertainment and the expenditure incurred towards these events cannot be considered to be application for charitable purposes is concerned the Ld.CIT(A) held that by conducting these events no commercial benefit was received by the assessee and such activities were organized for the benefit of the patients and their attendants and also the staff members to release the stress and create more appropriate environment for better recovery and service. Distinguishing the various decisions relied on by the AO the Ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee trust is entitled to exemption u/s.11 of the I.T. Act. 27. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us with the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant case has been diluted since the assessee has generated huge surplus and has not provided substantial medical relief to the underprivileged class of the society. Further, the assessee trust has violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) by giving excessive remuneration to relatives of the trustees. Referring to the order of the AO he submitted that the AO has elaborately discussed the various reasons for which he has denied the benefit of exemption u/s.11. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be reversed and that of the AO be restored. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee trust is purely engaged in the medical activities. Referring to page 16 of the paper book the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT vide order dated 27-12-1988 has allowed registration u/s.12A(a) to the assessee trust. Referring to pages 1 to 15 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the trust deed which contains the objects of the trust at clause (4) of the trust deed. Referring to the copy of the assessment order for A.Y. 2007-08, copy of which is plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hospitals give different bills for medicines, visit fees of doctors and other services. As such, the gross billing of such cases consist of only hospital/medical attendant services. In some other cases like in the case of the assessee, the gross billing includes visit fees of doctors/OPD fees/hospital drugs/medicines/catering charges etc. The assessee took the gross receipts excluding the OPD fees, medicine charges and doctors fees on the ground that major part of them are to be refunded to the doctors or suppliers of the medicines etc. and therefore according to the assessee doctors fees and supply of medicines do not form part of the gross receipts. Therefore, the assessee considered only hospital billing for the purpose of transferring 2% of the fund to the IPF. In this year the total hospital billing was ₹ 21,98,94,306/-. Accordingly, the assessee credited 2% of the said amount to the IPF which works out to ₹ 43,97,884/-. Further, there were certain donations received specifically for treatment of indigent patients and hence the amount of such donations received was also credited to the said fund. During this year the assessee has received donations for specific pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as gone beyond the provisions of the Act which is not justified. He submitted that due to bonafide confusion regarding the interpretation of the term, the assessee made provision of 2% of the hospital receipts as provision for IPF. However, when the matter was clarified by the Charity Commissioner, the assessee made a provision right from October, 2006. He submitted that the purpose of creation of this fund is to help indigent and weaker section of the public and the same has been achieved. Since the assessee has subsequently rectified the lesser provision made for the IPF it is not proper for the AO to deny the claim of exemption u/s.11. 32. So far as the denial of grant of exemption due to surplus generated by the assessee trust is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is not a Government aided hospital and does not receive any aid from the Govt. He submitted that the surplus generated during the year is hardly 18%. Further, the AO has not considered the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee. If the same is considered, then the surplus generated is not even 5% of the gross receipts. Referring to page 576 of the Paper Book the Ld. Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e activities of the trust after meeting the expenditure incurred for conducting educational activities would not disentitle the trust of the benefit of section 10(23C). Similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Queens Educational Society vide Civil Appeal No.5167/2008 order dated 16-03-2015 and the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tolani Education Society reported in 351 ITR 184. He submitted that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tolani Education Society (Supra) has held that provisions of section 10(23C) cannot be interpreted regressively to deny exemptions to institution which existed solely for educational purposes merely because incidental surplus was used to upgrade educational facilities in education institution. 35. Referring to the CBDT Circular No.14/2015 dated 17-08-2015 which was issued in the context of section 10(23C)(vi) he submitted that the CBDT has also accepted that mere generation of surplus year after year cannot be the reason for disallowing the claim of exemption. He accordingly submitted that after considering the capital expenditure there is hardly any surplus which has been generated. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the food is very reasonable and much lesser th the standard rates. He submitted that the profit computed at ₹ 78.81 lakhs by the AO is not correct and the profit is only ₹ 18.95 lakhs which is very nominal. Referring to the copy of the income and expenditure account of the canteen for the year ending 31-03-2008 placed at page 220 of the paper book, he submitted that as against the total receipt of ₹ 2.29 crores the surplus is only ₹ 18.95 lakhs. Further, the assessee has maintained separate books of account for the canteen activity. He submitted that even if it is assumed that the canteen activity amounts to carrying out business, in view of section 11(4A) the assessee can carry out such business so long as the same is incidental to the attainment of the main objects of the trust. For the above proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Thanthi Trust reported in 247 ITR 785 where it has been held that after the amendment to section 11(4A), a charitable trust can carry out a business so long as the business is incidental to the objects of the trust. It has further been held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lsory for all the persons, then in that case all the 104 persons would have given donations to the assessee trust. Although these details were given to the AO, however, he has not considered the same properly. 42. As regards the donation receipts issued to 3 persons, namely Sujata Dilip Nayakude, S.N. Waghle and Shri Rajesh Deepak Phadke are concerned, he submitted that the above 3 persons have given the donations out of their own will. Therefore, it is totally incorrect on the part of the AO to hold that the assessee had demanded fees and issued donation receipts. Referring to their statements, copies of which are placed at pages 203 to 207 of the paper book, he submitted that they have clarified the reasons for giving donations. He submitted that in respect of Smt. Kavita Waghle the donation given by her was ₹ 9,000/- while the concession given to her for the medical treatment was ₹ 24,342/-. In the case of Shri Dilip Nayakude the concession given to him was ₹ 12,862/- while the donation given by him was ₹ 5,100/-. Therefore, it is wrong to hold that the assessee has issued bogus donation receipts. Further, he submitted that this cannot be a ground for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Shri Shelke has clarified that he was reporting to Mrs. Meena Kelkar in the house keeping department. He submitted that these evidences were also furnished before the AO in the remand proceedings and the AO has not controverted the same. Further, Smt. Sarika Shelke was looking after house keeping activity and salary paid to her was ₹ 16,000/- per month whereas the salary paid to Mrs. Meena Kelkar is much less than that for the same work. Therefore, merely because the person employed is more than 58 years and is the mother of one of the trustees, the same cannot be a ground for denying exemption u/s.11 when the said person has been paid remuneration which is much less than the amount paid to the earlier person for the similar nature of work. 45. As regards the payment made to Mrs. Bharti Mangeshkar, trustee is concerned, he submitted that she is looking after the general administration of the hospital. Further, the AO in the assessment order has stated that Mr. Bomi Bhote of Ruby Hall Clinic was paid a salary of ₹ 1 lakh and he was also handling the general administration. According to the AO, Mrs. Mangeshkar was not regular at the hospital for which he held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey has been utilized for the objects of the trust, therefore, there is no violation. He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the above and accordingly allowed the claim of exemption which is in order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be upheld and the grounds raised by the revenue should be dismissed. 48. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the assessee in the instant is a Charitable Trust formed on 20-08-1988. The assessee trust has been registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 27-12-1988 issued by the CIT, Pune, a copy of which has been placed at page 16 of the paper book. The assessee trust runs a hospital under the name and style of Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital at Pune. The assessee trust filed its return of income claiming exemption u/s.11 of the I.T. Act. We find the AO denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 11,34,45,230/- on the following grounds : 1. The assessee trust has not furnished prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipts for IPF. After the visit of the Charity Commissioner, he directed to include the OPD fees only to the hospital charges and medicine charges and doctor fees were not considered for the purpose of making provision for indigent fund. The assessee accordingly made provision for the balance amount on 31-05-2010 for the period from October 2006 to November 2009. We find force in the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We also find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that after the inspection of records by the Charity Commissioner, the assessee has made provision for the shortfall and the Charity Commissioner has neither cancelled the registration nor levied any penalty, therefore, this cannot be a ground for denying the exemption u/s.11 of the I.T. Act. 51. We find although the assessee in the instant case has clarified the above facts before the AO, however, it was not appreciated by him. We find the CIT(A) after properly appreciating the facts has given a finding that the shortfall computed by the Charity Commissioner was much less than the shortfall computed by the AO. Further, the shortfall in the creation of IPF was due to certain co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritable purpose merely because some profit arises from the activity Exclusionary clause does not require that the activity must be carried on in such a manner that it does not result in any profit. 54. We find the CBDT vide Circular No.14/2015 dated 17-08-2015 has given clarification on certain issues related to grant of approval and claim of exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act, 1961. In para 3 of the said circular it has been stated as under : A doubt has been raised whether generation of surplus out of gross receipts would necessary breach the threshold condition that the educational institution should exist solely for educational purpose and not for the purpose of profit . Perusal of prescribed provisions clearly reveal that mere generation of surplus cannot be a basis for rejection of application u/s.10(23C)(vi) on the ground that it amounts to an activity of the nature of profit making. In fact, the third proviso to the said clause clearly provides that accumulation of income is permissible subject to the manner prescribed therein provided such accumulation is to be applied wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established . Hence, it is clarifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aritable trust runs a hospital and is claiming tax exemption, there is no requirement that medical aid should be provided only to the poor nor there is any requirement that some particular percentage of services should be rendered free. So long as it is not shown that the hospital was running with the object of earning profits, the trust cannot be denied exemption. 58. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Noble Medical Foundation and Research Centre at para 23 of the order has observed as under : 23. Another aspect of the denial of deduction under section 11 of the Act to the assessee was that the assessee had failed to provide concessional treatment to indigent / poor patients. Admittedly, this was the first year of operation of the hospital and the plea of the assessee was that it could not provide free medical relief to large numbers of indigent / poor patients. However, as per the data submitted before the Assessing Officer, which is incorporated under para 9 at page 10 of the assessment order, such services to indigent / poor patients was numbering 808 was provided by the assessee trust and the total bill amount of concession given to the patients was & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to section 11(4A) a charitable trust can carry out a business so long as the business is incidental to the objects of the trust. It has further been held that business is incidental to the objects of the trust when the surplus generated from the business is utilized for the objects of the trust. The relevant observation of the Hon ble Supreme Court at para 21 of the order read as under : 20. We now address the third controversy, which relates to sub-section (4A) of section 11 as substituted with effect from April 1, 1992. The learned Solicitor-General submitted that while the substituted sub-section (4A) gave trusts and institutions a wider latitude than the earlier subsection (4A), it had still to be construed to mean that a trust or institution would not get the benefit of section 11 unless the business it carried on was carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the trust or institution. Dr. Pal, on the other hand, submitted that the substituted sub-section (4A) was couched in wide language and a trust was entitled to the benefit of section 11 if it utilised the income of its business for the purposes of achieving its objects. 21. The subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for charitable purposes or has been utilized for non charitable purposes. Since there is no such finding given by the AO, therefore, denial of exemption u/s.11 on account of running of the canteen is not justified. 63. As regards the objection of the AO that assessee trust has organized musical nights and such programmes are not warranted in case of a charitable trust, we find this objection of the AO is also not at all justified. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the artists have performed free of cost could not be controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. Further, the AO cannot dictate an assessee as to how its affairs should be conducted. When the assessee has clarified that the musical nights were performed by renowned artists who did not take any remuneration from the trust and the main intension of organizing such programmes was to reduce the stress level of the patients and their relatives, therefore, under these circumstances denial of exemption u/s.11 in our opinion is not warranted. The Ld.CIT(A) has properly appreciated the facts and rejected the objection of the AO on this issue by giving valid reasons which in our opinion is proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remuneration of ₹ 90,000/-. She was earlier looking after house keeping department of Sanjeevan Hospital and thus was having enough experience. Further, she was appointed in place of Smt. Sarita Shelke who was looking after the house keeping activity and she was paid remuneration of ₹ 16,000/- per month. The various evidences furnished by the assessee in the paper book show that Mr. Meena Kelkar was actually looking after the house keeping activity of the assessee trust. The trustee Dr. Dhananjay Kelkar had also filed an affidavit before the CIT(A) that the remark made by the AO was incorrect and he had not made any statement in the assessment proceedings as alleged by the AO. 66. Similarly in the case of Mrs. Bharti Mangeshkar she has been given remuneration of ₹ 50,000/- per month for looking after the general administration of the hospital. The AO has brought on record the remuneration paid to one Mr. Bomi Bhote of Ruby Hall Clinic at ₹ 1 lakhs per month who was also handling generation administration of the hospital. Thus, the remuneration paid to Mrs. Bharti Mangeshkar is much less than the remuneration paid to persons placed in similar circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.761/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) : 69. Grounds raised by the Revenue are as under : 1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. 1961. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate the voluminous data and evidences gathered and used by the Assessing Officer which would clearly establish that the assessee was running its hospital, canteen and other activities along commercial lines, and, therefore, could not be treated as pursuing charitable objects. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in diluting the concept of charity beyond recognition and in not taking any note of the spirit underlying this concept as used in the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the assessee cannot be considered to have violated the provisions of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
