9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d his life in the battle at Mandvagadh, became a Pir. His father brought his body to Unava and burried him there. Over the years the Dargah became venerated place and people of all faiths offer their prayers to the Shrine. It appears that the then State of Baroda attached the Dargah and since thereafter litigation started between the Mujawars descendants of Mira Saiyyad and the then State of Baroda. The Mujawars were claiming that the Dargah was private property and the income therefrom belonged to them. The then State of Baroda was claiming that the Dargah was public religious trust and the State Govt. was entitled to own and run the Dargah. On the merger of the then Baroda State with the State of Bombay, the litigation continued in the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme, the balance amount of Rs. 48,030 was divided amongst the Mujawars. 4. On the aforesaid facts, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 48,030 and in Part II of the return it made the following notes: "The assessee trust has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 48,030 being disbursement in the form of division to various Mujawars of the trust as per the Scheme framed by the District Court in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1960 from the service rendered by the said Mujawars of the said trust. It is, therefore, claimed that this disbursement being an obligation on the trust as per the said scheme is an expenditure of the Trust. In this connection reliance is placed on the scheme framed by the District Court, various notes put below the statement of to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ict Judge and free English translation of the Scheme for administration of the Dargah approved by the Hon'ble High court of Judicature at Bombay and submitted that on proper appreciation of the material already brought on record, the AAC was fully justified in accepting the assessee's the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 48,030. In this connection, he invited our attention to paragraphs 21 22 of the Scheme (reproduced above). Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvindkumar J. Saheba vs. CIT (1981) 22 CTR (Guj) 245 : (1981) 131 ITR 86 (Guj) the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that having regard to the nature of the Scheme, Rs. 48,030 never became part of the income earned by the assessee as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
