9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. - ITA Nos.710 & 711/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2017 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM For the Appellant : Shri M.K. Gautam For the Respondent : Shri S.N. Doshi ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : These two appeals filed by the Revenue are emanating out the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune dt.26.02.2015 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. Before us, at the outset Ld.D.R. submitted that though the appeals filed by the Revenue are for different assessment years but the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical except for the assessment year and the amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) was justified in holding that the expenditure on advertisement was a legitimate expenditure incurred for the purpose of pursuing the objects of the society. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in holding that the funds of the society are not applied or used or diverted for the benefit of the persons referred to section 13(3) in violation of condition laid down u/s 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(c). 4. Before us, both the parties submitted that both the grounds are inter-connected and can be considered together. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that Shri Balaji Creativities (SBC), a partnership firm was running an Advertising Agency and three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the facts of the case as well as reply of the appellant. In this case, it is seen that the appellant got relief from CIT(A)-III, Pune in A.Y. 2008-09 on identical grounds. Hon'ble Pune Tribunal thereafter dismissed the appeal filed by the department, upholding the decision of CIT(A)-III, Pune. For the sake of clarity, the relevant portion of Tribunal's order in A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No. 1679/PN/2012 dated 18.02.2015 is reproduced as under: 5. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The main plank of the argument of the Ld. DR is that M/s. Sri Balaji Creativities (SBC) is the child of the trustees of the assessee trust and the advertisement expenditure which is the major part of total expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad in the case of CIT Vs. Kamla Town Trust 279 ITR 89 (All.) and submits that burden is on the Assessing Officer to establish that the condition of See. 13(1)(c) is fulfilled and there is no presumption in See. 13(1)(c) or otherwise that if the transactions are done with parties covered u/s. 13(3) then those transactions are automatically covered under the provisions of See. 13(1)(c) of the Act. 6.1 He submits that the assessee trust is benefited by engaging to M/s. SBC for looking after the advertisement work of the assessee trust. He submits that though it is true that in the total turnover of M/s. SBC the contribution of the assessee trust is to the extent of 70% but the observation of the Assessing Officer is that M/s. SBC has gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file the sample bills of the Newspaper publications raised on M/s. SBC in respect of advertisements of the related parties i.e. the assessee trust end non-related parties to demonstrate that the difference in the card rate of advertisement as claimed in the chart filed in the compilation at Page No. 9 of the PIB. In compliance with the direction of the Bench, the assessee trust has filed sample, bills which are placed on record. Now, the issue for consideration is whether by giving the advertisement work to M/s. SBC which is a partnership firm engaged in the advertisement work, the assessee trust has violated the provisions of See. 13(1)(c) of the Act. Before us the Ld. AR for the assessee argued that in the case of many other clients, M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut given to the assessee as compare to card rate which is almost 10%. We also find that M/s. SBC has also done the work for other clients i.e. non-related parties to whom no discount or reduction in the card rates are given. Considering the totality of the evidence before us, we concur with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that by giving the advertisement work to M/s. SBC, the assessee trust has not violated the conditions of See. 13(1)(c) to deprive to get the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 12 of the Act. We accordingly, confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds taken by the Revenue. 9. Since, facts being identical, following appellate order of my predecessor for A.Y. 2008-09 which has been upheld at the level of Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
