9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee failed to exercise this option as prescribed under the rule 17. CIT(A) has pointed out serious discrepancies in the resolution of the society for setting apart of fund. Therefore, the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association [ 1992 (10) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in our considered view would not be applicable as in this case, the foundation of exercising the option itself is found to be faulty. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in this finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is hereby affirmed. Ground No.3 of the assessee s appeal is rejected. Availability of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) - HELD THAT:- As relying on COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in upholding the action of the Learned A.O. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute modify any of the above grounds on or before the final hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 28.3.2013. The assessee society is duly registered u/s 12AA of the Act. While framing the assessment, the A.O. observed that during the year under appeal, the assessee had declared income from other sources of ₹ 20,20,000/- and claimed application of money of ₹ 42,332/-. The assessee also claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly and exclusively for education purposes. Further, Ld. Counsel submitted that this being the legal issue ought to have been examined by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Further, Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that claim is rejected purely on the basis that the assessee has not submitted form No.10 as per rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Sr. Counsel reiterated the submissions which were made before the Ld. CIT(A). It was contended that the assessee filed ITR 7 in which bifurcation of accumulated income has been shown. The main object and purpose of submitting form 10 is to provide information related to accumulation and purpose for utilization of accumulated income covered u/s 11(2) of the Act. But the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: 9. It is pertinent to note that as per section 11 of the Act, the assessee is required to exercise option for accumulation of funds in a prescribed format as prescribed under rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules (in short the Rules ). The time limit prescribed under the rule 17 for exercising such option is the time limit as prescribed under sub-section 1 of section 139 of the Act for furnishing of return of income. Admittedly, the assessee failed to exercise this option as prescribed under the rule 17. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has pointed out serious discrepancies in the resolution of the society for setting apart of fund. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Upon due consideration of the matter, it is held that besides the fact that no such claim was made in the return of income, exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) is available only to educational institutions existing solely for the purpose of education and not for the purpose of profit. The appellant is not an educational institution . It is only a Regulatory Commission to regulate the operations of private universities in the state of Madhya Pradesh. In view of the above, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 13. The assessee has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Council for Indian School Certificate Examination Vs. DGIT (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
