9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) and hence, cannot be denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 - DR was unable to point out any distinguishing features as regards the activities of the assessee and that of the activities of the assessee s in the case laws relied on by the CIT(A). We see no reason to interfere with the orders of the CIT(A) and we affirm the same as correct and in accordance with law. Appeals filed by the Department are dismissed. - ITA No. 395, 396, 397, 398, 399/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2022 - Shri George George K, JM And Ms.Padmavathy S, AM Appellant by : Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR Respondent by : None ORDER Per George George K , JM : These appeals at the instance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of trade, commerce or business and therefore hit by the first Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5. Any other grounds which may arise at the time of hearing. 6. The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC may be set aside and other order of the AO may be confirmed. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an AOP, registered u/s 12AA of the I.T.Act. It is engaged in the activities of development of infrastructural facilities. For the assessment years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 and 2017-2018, assessments were completed by denying the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the I.T.Act and irrespective of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment orders and the grounds raised. 6. None was present on behalf of the assessee. 7. We have heard the learned DR and perused the material on record. On perusal of the case laws relied on by the CIT(A) for taking a decision in favour of the assessee, we find the activities of the assessee s in the said cases and that of the assessee in the instant case are identical. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (supra) and the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bangalore Development Authority (supra), had held that the assessee is not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act, and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
