9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in law and on facts and is liable to be set- aside. 2. That the learned CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in only partly allowing the claim made u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 110,94,73,718/- as against Rs. 120,00,33,672/-claimed in ITR form. 3. That the learned CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in not giving the benefit of balance claim of Rs. 9,05,58,182/- on account of non- accumulation of funds u/s 11(5) of the Act, though evidences were furnished with the learned CIT(A). 4. That order passed by learned CIT (A), NFAC is against the principles of natural justice as no clarification was sought for any discrepancy found while matching the details of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/- and accordingly. refund of Rs. 95,95.528/- had been determined as against refund of Rs. 1.68,51,181/- claimed in ITR. In response to above said intimation issued u/s 143(1), a rectification application u/s 154 was e-filed by the appellant on 20/12/2022 stating "Correction of details of Pre-paid Taxes". Thereafter, an order was passed u/s 154 of the IT Act by CPC, Bangalore dated 12/01/2023 wherein CPC had not given the credit of balance TDS but this time demand was raised for Rs. 64,47,35,040/- on account of disallowing the claim made u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,33,672/-. 1.3. Against the above said rectification order passed u/s 154 of the IT Act dated 12/01/2023, the appellant had again e-filed rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- whereas required accumulation is only Rs. 120,00,33672/-. In this respect, the figures are verified and calculation for required accumulation is as under:- Receipts for the year less of corpus donations -150,87,77,329 Less:- 15% allowed without application -22,63,16,600 Remaining 85% to be applied -128,24,60,729 Less Actually applied for purposes of the trust -8,24,28,829 Remaining to be accumulated u/s 11(2) -(to claim deduction) -120,00,31,900 Therefore, there is merit in the appellant's contention that the Rs. 135,00,00,000/- not necessary to be accumulated. 4.3.5. In this context, the actual accumulation figures given by the appellant and the figures on verification of the evidences attached for accumulation un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 110,94,73,718/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 9,05,58,182/- (120,00,31,900 - 110,94,73,718) is not eligible for deduction being more than the allowable 15% and not accumulated into the specified modes u/s 11(5). The AO is directed to restrict the said addition to Rs. 9,05,58,182/-." 6. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's claim under section 11(2) of the Act amounting to Rs. 110,94,73,718/- as against Rs. 120,00,33,672/- claimed in the return. It is against the denial of benefit of balance claim of Rs. 9,05,58,182/- on account of non-accumulation of funds under section 11(5) of the Act, that the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
