Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (2) TMI 795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the parties through video conferencing and perused the Orders of the authorities below. 3. The facts of the case are that as per Individual Transaction Statement, information in this case was received that assessee has received interest other than interest on securities under section 194A of Rs. 41,344/- and rent under section 194I of Rs. 4,75,200/- during assessment year under appeal. It was also observed that the assessee has not filed income tax return for the assessment year under appeal. The A.O. called for explanation of assessee. The assessee stated that it has not filed its return of income for the assessment year under appeal. The A.O. noted that assessee has not filed return of income and huge cash was deposited in its bank acco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee. Therefore, contention of assessee was rejected. 3.2. The A.O. also gone through the details of other expenses and disallow expenses of Rs. 88,943/- under section 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961, out of the general expenses, telephone expenses, water and electricity and washing expenses. The A.O, therefore, made addition of Rs. 88,943/- and directed to charge tax @ 30%. 3.3. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) on merit as well as charging of income tax @30% on the assessed income. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of assessee, deleted the addition of Rs. 88,943/- and as such there were no question of charging income tax @ 30%. This ground of appeal of assessee was allowed. 3.4. The assessee as regards .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he contention of appellant that approval for the purpose of said section was not applicable for the year under consideration is not correct since prior to approval by the prescribed authority for the purpose of claiming exemption, the trust or institution had to be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. It is noteworthy that no documentary evidence with regard to notification by the Central Government for the purpose of section 10(23C)(v) has been submitted during the appellate proceeding also. Hence, in absence of any notification of the Central Government or approval of the prescribed authority for the purpose of section 10(23C)(v), the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee is not approved for the purpose .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ust (including any other legal obligation) or institution wholly for public religious purposes or wholly for public religious and charitable purposes, (which may be approved by the prescribed authority), having regard to the manner in which the affairs of the trust or institution are administered and supervised for ensuring that the income accruing thereto is properly applied for the objects thereof." 6.1. Rule 2C of the I.T. Rules, 1962 provides as under: [Guidelines for approval under sub-clauses (iv) and (v) of clause (23C) of section 10. 2C. (1) The prescribed authority under subclauses (iv) and (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall be the Chief Commissioner or Director General, to whom the application shall be made as provided .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1.2014 and hence, there were no requirement for approval by the Prescribed Authority. We do not subscribe to such a view because even Section 10(23C)(v) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as reproduced above was applicable for the assessment year under appeal and it was necessary to get approval of the Prescribed Authority before claiming exemption under such provision. It is only on 15.11.2014 the Prescribed Authority was designated to be the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) as per Board's Notification Dated 05.03.2015. Therefore, contention of Learned Counsel for the Assessee has no merit and is accordingly rejected. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also contended that as per Section 115BBC(2) the assessee need not to get approval under sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates