9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008-09, exemption was allowed under Section 11 of the Act. As observed by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal in the impugned order that the requirement is to keep and which has been done in this case. The test cannot be percentage of the poor patients actually treated, in the absence of any evidence to indicate that poor patients were denied in-house treatment in the hospital. - Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No.1080 Of 2015 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA SANDEEP K. SHINDE JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant. Ms. A. Vissanji with Mr. S.J. Mehta, Advocates for Respondent. P.C: This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 5.3.2015 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done for this Assessment Year i.e., 2009-10. Mr. Suresh Kumar tenders the copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 11.10.2013 in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. On perusal of the order dated 11.10.2013, we find that during the first appellate proceedings for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the Respondent-Assessee had relied on certain fresh evidence before the CIT(A). This fresh evidence was not made available to the Assessing Officer so as to raise his objections and/or make his comments in respect of the same. This the Tribunal in its order dated 11.10.2013 found was in breach of the Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules and therefore, set aside the order in appeal and restored it to the CIT (A) for fresh consideration after giving noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year that the Respondent is entitled to Section 11 of the Act, does it further record that in the Appellant's own case for the Assessment Year 200809, exemption was allowed under Section 11 of the Act. 7. Further, it is to be noted as observed by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal in the impugned order that the requirement is to keep beds reserved for needy and poor persons and which has been done in this case. The test cannot be percentage of the poor patients actually treated, in the absence of any evidence to indicate that poor patients were denied in-house treatment in the hospital. 8. In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 9. Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
