9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. 2. By order dated 9-11-2011, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deciding that the impermissible investments are not made in violation of section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with section 11(5) of the Income-tax Act? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deciding that no time limit was provided for disinvesting the impermissible investment without considering the proviso to section 13(1)(d) of the Act? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deciding that holding of impermissible investmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly for approval under section 10(23C)(vi), consequent to the amendment of the Act; they had investments in limited companies, which are not the specified modes permissible under section 11(5) and they did not attempt to convert the impermissible investments into permissible investments in all the four previous years; and hence, the assessing officer denied exemption under section 11 for the reason that the investments were made in violation of section 13(1)(d) r/w section 11(5). However, the CIT(A) allowed the exemption to the assessee treating the impermissible investments as not made in violation of section 13(1)(d), which was also erroneously confirmed by the ITAT, by observing that the assessee was hitherto availing exemption under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a perusal of the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers, more particularly, the orders passed by the authorities below, it could be seen that the assessee is a registered society and was granted exemption under section 10(22) of the Act, in respect of all the income arising from the educational institutions run by them, upto the assessment year 1998-99. However, for the assessment years in question, viz., 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the assessing officer inter alia denied exemption under section 11, stating that there had been violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(d) r/w section 11(5) of the Act, as the assessee had kept its investments in the form of shares of companies. It was further held by the assessing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue, by the order impugned in these tax case appeals. 8. However, the findings so rendered by the appellate authorities cannot be countenanced by this court. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not comply with the provisions of law, subsequent to the amendment, for claiming exemption under section 11, though they enjoyed the said benefit till the assessment year 1998-99, without any restrictions. It is the specific case of the appellant/Revenue that the assessee is holding shares and other investments in private companies, which are outside the scope of section 11(5) and hence, they are not entitled for the benefit of section 11 as provided in section 13(1)(d), for the assessment years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
