9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT] with reference to State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. H Abdul Barhi Bros [ 1964 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT ] has observed that merely because a fee or some other consideration is collected or received by an institution, it would not lose its character of having been established for a charitable purpose. Also in the case of PCIT vs Servants of People Society [ 2021 (11) TMI 684 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that assessee/society does not carry on any business, trade or commerce with the intent of earning and distributing profit. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA 198/2022 & C.M.No.30914/2022 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA Appellant Through: Mr.Ajit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessment year, the assessee has been denied said exemption by the Assessing Officer invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. On further appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the exemption under section 11 of the Act with all consequential benefits. 5. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), preferred an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A) holding that the assessee is not engaged in any trade, commerce or business and thus proviso of section 2(15) is not attracted to the case of the assessee. 6. The ITAT also noted that the assessing officer has not brought on record any evidences which would suggest that the activities of the assessee had been carried out with profit motive. The Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been established for a charitable purpose. Furthermore, this Court in the case of PCIT vs Servants of People Society [ITA 161/2021] has held as under: 5. This Court in ITA No.154/2021 titled Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. Association of State Road Transport Undertakings has held that it is settled law that the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act does not exclude entities which are essentially for charitable purpose but are conducting some activities for a consideration or a fee. This Court has further held that the object of introducing first proviso is to exclude organizations which are carrying on regular business with profit motive with intent to distribute the profit to the shareholders/owners. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. It has also held that there is a difference between question of law and a substantial question of law . Consequently, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT. 9. Consequently, this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
