9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case CIT(Exemption) has not taken proper cognizance of the correct state of the assessee society’s purpose and object. Thus, it will be appropriate to remand back these issues before the CIT (Exemptions) for looking into the same and the assessee also should provide all the required evidences before the CIT(Exemptions). - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. - ITA No. 6286/DEL/2015, ITA No. 6285/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2018 - Shri N. K. Saini, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. R. K. Mehra, CA For the Respondent : Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee in respect of order dated 28/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) erred in law and on facts in wrongly considering the Society as mutual society kind of organization working for the mutual benefit of members, without showing as to how the members are benefited from the Society and completely ignoring that none of the objects of the Society suggested any mutuality of interest as held by the Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions). 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner s case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) erred in law and on facts in refusing to grant registration under section 12A of the Income tax Act, 1961 by holding that none of the objects of our Society are covered within the definition of charitable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee filed all the details as explained u/s 12AA in respect of Application for Registration Exemption u/s 80G of the Act before the CIT(E). The Ld. AR submitted that the object of the society was to serve the general public only which was overlooked by the CIT (Exemptions). 6. The Ld. DR submitted that as per 1922 Act, business was permitted for relief to poor, education, medical relief and any other object of general public utility subject to the primary purpose theory unless the business was done mainly by the beneficiaries. The rule of application of income existed. As per 1961 Act the concept of profit motive was introduced with respect to any other object of general public utility. Here came the concept of dominant pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed for relief to poor etc and so was the application of primary purpose theory and incidental to primary purpose theory in respect of the same. For any other object of general public utility, bar on profit motive, was still not there. But activities of business/trade/commerce were prohibited i.e profit from other activities was permitted under the clause. So the dominant purpose theory is not relevant now. Therefore, from A.Y. 2009-10, the decisions based on the concept of profit motive and dominant purpose theory are no longer relevant and decisions for A.Y. 2009-10 onwards permitting prohibited activities by relying on decisions related to these concepts and on such principles are per-incuriam/sub-silentio with respect of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
