9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has held in favour of the assessee claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) is not allowable since the aggregate receipts exceed ₹ 1 Crore (Rule 2BC of the Income Tax Rules, 1962). Further, in the return of income it has been mentioned that the assessee is not registered under section 12A and no other details regarding registration under any other Act has been given. Since exemption has not been claimed under sections 11 and 12 and no details regarding registration under the Societies Registration Act have been given in the return of income, there appears to be no infirmity in the action of the CPC in calculating tax at the maximum marginal rate instead of the slab rate. Revenue could not rebu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was challenged before the Id CIT(A)-40, New Delhi, who in her order dated 26-07-2019 was wrong: (i) In holding that there appears to be no infirmity in the action of the CPC in calculating the tax at Maximum Marginal rates instead of the slab rates. (ii) In not following her own view rendered in the appeal of 'Ram Narain Krishna Devi Jain Foundation', appeal no 181/2016-17 AY 2014-2015' duly followed in for AY 2015-2016 and other appeals holding that where a charitable society is not registered u/s. 12A of the Act, it is entitled to basic exemption limit as per paragraph A and part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, and in view of the provisions of section 164(2) it is only the income which become taxable by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80/-. Therefore, the amount who was considered twice to be deleted. However, in respect of applying the maximum marginal rate, the explanation of the assessee was not accepted and the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard were dismissed. 5. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a registered society having charitable objectives and running educational schools. The society derived income therefrom at ₹ 1,46,73,932/- and filed its return of income in Form ITR-7 u/s.139(4A) of the Act, declaring total income of ₹ 2,40,752/- without claiming any exemption u/sections 11, 12, 10(23C)(iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, as the society nei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is the contention of the assessee that the assessee's society is not registered u/s. 12A of the Act, is not approved u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. It is also contended that CPC failed to give an opportunity in terms of Section 139(9) of the Act, furthermore the same Ld. CIT(A) has held in favour of the assessee in the case of Ram Narain Krishna Devi Jain Foundation, Appeal no 181/2016-17 Assessment Year 2016-17. I found merit in this contention of the assessee as the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of Ram Narain Krishna Devi Jain Foundation (supra) has held as under:- 5.2.1. I have considered the impugned intimation and the submissions of the appellant. I have also perused the return of income from which it has been th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 2,21,32,550/-) filed its return of income in Form ITR-7 u/s. 139(4A) of the Act, declaring total income of ₹ 2,96,610/- without claiming any exemption u/s. 11/12/10(23C)(iiiad)/10(23C)(vi) of the Act, as the society is neither registered u/s. 12A nor approved u/s. 10(23C) (vi) of the Act. In the intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 10.03.2016 CPC charged maximum marginal rate without allowing the basic exemption limit which was challenged before the Ld CIT(A)-40, New Delhi, who in her order dated 26-07-2019 was wrong: (i) In holding that there appears to be no infirmity in the action of the CPC in calculating the tax at Maximum Marginal rates instead of the slab rates. (ii) In not following her own view rendered in the appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
