9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of these shares have been added to his "net wealth", being a part of his business assets. Even otherwise, there is no dispute in this behalf. In the year, the assessee donated these shares to M/s. Murlidhar Sohanlal Foundation Society, Kanpur, a charitable trust. The claim of the assessee in regard to the deduction of Rs. 23,584 u/s 80G in respect of the said shares transferred to the said Society was negatived by the ITO on the ground that the income of the said society was not exempt u/s 11 12 of the Act, one of the conditions pre-requisite for the allowance of deduction u/s 80G of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said disallowance, the assessee brought the matter by way of appeal before the CIT (Appeals), who agreed with the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G was not attracted in the present case, because that Explanation was effective from the accounting period relevant to the asst. yr. 1976-77 and the year in the present appeal is asst. yr. 1974-75. Even otherwise, according to Dr. Vaish, in view of various arguments advanced by him at the hearing, the Expln. 5 was not attracted in the present case. 5. In reply the Deptl. Rep. urged that in Associated Cement Co.'s case, the High Court had given a finding that what the assessee handed over to the University of Bombay (Department of Chemical Technology) was the aggregate amount of Rs. 6,600 and it was because of this finding that the claim for deduction u/s 15B was upheld. He referred us to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which constituted the Division Bench, it would appear to us that it was not the Tribunal or the person who prepared the headnote who had misread the decision of the Bombay High Court in Associated Cement Company's case (1968) 68 ITR 478 (Bom), but the learned judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In associated Cement Company's case (1968) 68 ITR 478 (Bom) the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had expressly observed at a number of places in the judgment and found that the assessee had spent Rs. 6,600 out of its own coffers, prepared the kiln and then handed over the kiln to the university pursuant to the earlier request made by the university for the donation of the kiln. It is im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k to the substance of the transaction and the purpose underlying s. 88(1) (now sec. 80G). For these observations the Mysore High Court relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Associated Cement Company's case (1968) 68 ITR 478 (Bom). In the source of the judgment, it was observed that the decision in Associated Cement Company's case has held the field all these years and the department did not take up the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court." In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of s. 80G of the Act, because the shares donated were in kind and not in cash, more so when those shares constitute stock-in-trade of the assessee and in fact the donation in kind is nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
