9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowances made vide intimation / order passed under section 143(1) of the Act, of various deductions, exemptions, relief claimed in the return of income aggregating to Rs. 77,23,693. 1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee trust's case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) was wrong in assuming the reasons for making of adjustments made vide intimation / order passed under section 143(1) and thus sustaining disallowances / adjustment of Rs. 77,23,693 even while the said intimation was not a speaking order in as much as the reasons for making disallowances / adjustment have not been mentioned in the said intimation / order dated 11.03.2017." 3. As taken from the record of the CIT(A). 4. The facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l public utility- Yes a whether there is any activity' in the nature of trade, commerce or business referred to in proviso to section 2(15)? Yes b whether there is any activity of rendering any services in relation to any trade, commerce or business for any consideration as referred to in proviso to section 2(15)? No ii If 'a' or 'b' is YES, the aggregate annual receipts from the such activities SI. No. Name of the project/Institution's Amount of aggregate annual receipts from such activities 1 GURU VIRJANAND DHARMARTHA AUSHADHALAYA 18648845 8. The ld. CIT(A) held that it is apparent that any claim which is inconsistent with any other ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the above, the ld. CIT(A) held that a plain reading of section 2(15) it is clear that if the charitable purpose falls under the category of advancement of any other object of general public utility and. the receipts from business are more than Rs. 25 lakhs, then, as per the first proviso to section 2(15), advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be charitable purpose. To that extent, there is no inconsistency in the processing by the CPC since the receipts from activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business were shown to be more than Rs. 25 lakhs. 11. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [(2008) 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 2(15), the activity cannot be considered to be a charitable purpose, the receipts be more than Rs. 25 lakhs, it was considered as an incorrect claim and exemption was denied at the time of processing. 13. Before us, it was pleaded that the assessee has wrongly filled the column A(i) pertaining to "Other details" the ITR7 and since CPC is a automated process, the adjustment has also been wrongly made. It was argued that had there been a notice issued before making an adjustment, the same would have been brought to the notice of the revenue authorities. On the other hand, the ld. DR argued that the order u/s 143(1) is based on the return filed by the assessee. 14. Having gone through the entire factum of the case, we hold that a ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
