9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in the year 1987. They are engaged in the research work in agricultural related activities and it is recognized as a leading nationally acclaimed society engaged in the field of research in Bio- Technology and Toxicology and they undertake various aspects including research and development studies that directly impact the safety in nonclinical, health and environmental areas and the Tribunal has rightly accepted the stand taken by the assessee and consequently reversed the finding of the AO who treated the assessee acclaimed to have been a contractor. AO treated the assessee as an institution while granting approval under Section 35(1)(ii) by the competent authority as well as by the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption) (DITE) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act), are directed against the common order dated 03.09.2019 made in ITA.Nos.1833 to 1835/Chny/2019 respectively for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2015-16 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal). 2. The appellant-Revenue has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial question of law for consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(21) of the Act by treating the assessee as Association when the said provision mandates exemption only to the association and not to the institutions? 3. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) denying the claim of depreciation under Section 11 of the Act. The Tribunal, by the common impugned order, dismissed the Revenue's appeals and this is how the Revenue is before us by way of the present appeals. 8. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record, we find that there is no error in the common order passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal rightly took note of the statement of facts which have been furnished by the assessee, wherein the assessee had stated that the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee is not a Charitable Organization and that the activity done by them does not qualify as charitable pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titution instead of an association ignoring the earlier stand of the Department is illegal. 10. The Assessee referred to the decisions in the assessee's own case taken by the Tribunal in (i) ITA.No.2309/Mds/2005 dated 26.05.2006 for the assessment year 1997-98, (ii) ITA.No.12/Mds/2007 dated 19.11.2007 for the assessment year 1998-99, (iii) ITA.No.1523/Mds/2008 dated 29.06.2009 for the assessment year 2000-01 and (iv) ITA.No.317/Mds/2009 dated 16.07.2009 for the assessment year 2004-05, wherein the Tribunal has held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he safety in nonclinical, health and environmental areas and the Tribunal has rightly accepted the stand taken by the assessee and consequently reversed the finding of the Assessing Officer who treated the assessee acclaimed to have been a contractor. 13. Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the provisions of Section 10(21) of the Act is applicable only to research association and not to institutions. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as an institution while granting approval under Section 35(1)(ii) by the competent authority as well as by the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption) (DITE) and not as an association and therefore, the assessee cannot claim the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
