9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application of the assessee, yet the assessee has removed those objections before filing second-application on 20.01.2020. We observe from the submission of Ld. AR, which we do not narrate again to avoid repetition, that there does not survive any of the objections raised by Ld. CIT(E). We also observe that the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected second-application of the assessee with the sole reason that there is no change in objects. Except this one reason, the Ld. CIT(E) has not mentioned any other reason to reject the second-application. In this regard, we find that the Ld. AR has successfully submitted that the objectionable objects had already been removed before filing second-application and this submission of Ld. AR has not been controverte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee [as mentioned in the order of Ld. CIT(E)] are commercial in nature and they are not covered under charitable purpose in terms of section 2(15). (ii) The assessee has not provided MOU or Agreement with Niti Ayog and accounts. (iii) There is a provision to share the benefits of the assessee-company among its members. (iv) The objects of assessee permit activities outside India. The assessee amended its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association under the Companies Act, 2013 and removed the objects for which the Ld. CIT(E) had raised objection. Thereafter, the assessee filed second-application on 20.01.2020 in Form No. 10A alongwith all required documents for grant of registration. However, vide second-orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd-application dated 20.01.2020 on the sole reason that there is no change in the objects. The Ld. AR submitted that the fact is that the assessee had already omitted the objectionable objects before filing second-application and therefore the reasoning given by Ld. CIT(E) is far from truth. Ld. AR submitted that in fact the assessee had resolved all objections raised by Ld. CIT(E) in his first-order dated 27.09.2019. Although the Ld. AR made an elaborate submission to canvas as to how the assessee has made resolutions of all objections of Ld. CIT(E), we sum up the submissions of Ld. AR briefly as under: (i) Objection No. 1 - Certain objects of the assessee [as mentioned in the order of Ld. CIT(E)] are commercial in nature and they are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 91 of the Paper-Book. (iii) Objection No. 3 - There is a provision to share the benefits of the assessee-company among its members: Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a company incorporated u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. Ld. AR submitted that section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, which reads as under, itself debars the assessee from distribution of profits: Section 8. Formulation of companies with charitable objects, etc.- (1) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Central Government that a person or an association of persons proposed to be registered under this Act as a limited company- (a) has in its objects the promotion of commerce, art, science, sports, education, research, social welfare, rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court of judicature that has or many acquire jurisdiction in the matter. (iv) Objection No. 4 - Objects permit activities outside India: Ld. AR submitted that the clause dealing with the activities outside India has already been deleted and the Memorandum of Association stands amended on this aspect, before filing the second-application for grant of registration. With these submissions, the Ld. AR submitted that all of the objections raised by the Ld. CIT(E) in first-order have been duly met by the assessee and there remained no objection at the time of filing second-application. Hence the Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly rejected second-application of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR requested to direct the Ld. CIT(E) to gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
