Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › DIT (E) vs. M/s. Jasubhai Foundation (Bombay High Court)

DIT (E) vs. M/s. Jasubhai Foundation (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 8, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 10 & 11: In computing the income of charitable institutions exempt u/s 11, income exempt u/s 10 has to be excluded. The requirement in s. 11 with regard to application of income for charitable purposes does not apply to income exempt u/s 10

The High Court had to consider whether an assessee enjoying exemption u/s 11 could claim that the income exempt u/s 10(33) and 10(38) had to be excluded while computing the application of income for charitable or religious purpose. HELD by the High Court:

There is nothing in the language of sections 10 or 11 which says that what is provided by section 10 or dealt with is not to be taken into consideration or omitted from the purview of section 11. If we accept the argument of the Revenue, the same would amount to reading into the provisions something which is expressly not there. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the income which in this case the assessee trust has not included by virtue of section 10, then, that cannot be considered under section 11.

Related Posts:

  • CIT vs. Rajasthan And Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (Supreme Court) Income of a Charitable Trust derived form building, plant and machinery and furniture was liable to be computed in normal commercial manner although the Trust may not be carrying on any business and the assets in respect whereof depreciation is claimed may not be business assets. In all such cases,…
  • Prashanti Medical Services & Research Foundation vs. UOI (Supreme Court) As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue), a plea of promissory estoppel is not available to an assessee against the exercise of legislative power and nor any vested right accrues to an assessee in the matter of grant of any tax concession to him. In other…
  • Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd vs. IAC (Bombay High Court) Section 40(3) of the Act bringing to tax land and building which is not used for business purposes by companies in which public are not substantially interested to tax under the Wealth Tax Act and leaving out those land and buildings which are used for business purposes by companies in…
  • S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) The reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of information in the form of observations of ITAT is on sound footing and which constitutes a tangible material for the purpose of reopening as the assessee did not file her return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act…
  • CIT vs. ITD CEM India JV (Bombay High Court) Apart from that, the Tribunal's order is confusing. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does not indicate what it means by AOP. It does not indicate as to what it means by TAS for both sides tell us that it is identical to TDS, namely, Tax Deducted at Source. We…
  • CIT vs. L&T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) Mere using the words that there is concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income would not in the absence of same being particularized, lead to imposition of penalty. It is only when the specified officer of the Revenue is satisfied that there has been concealment of…

Related Judgements

  1. Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The correct test to be applied is whether the partnership assets were converted to capital assets of the partners at the time of dissolution. This we find, was provided for in the dissolution deed itself which records in clause (3) … Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High…
  2. India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (E) (Delhi High Court) 

    The expression “charitable purpose”, as defined in Section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act. It is also clear that if the literal interpretation is given to the proviso…
  3. CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    This court held in the matter of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) that the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was that the order sought to be revised must be erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to … CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd (Bombay…
  4. North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The High Court had to consider whether a person who is in the business of infrastructure development constructs a road on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis on land owned by the Government, can it claim depreciation on the toll … North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay…
  5. CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (Delhi High Court) 

    The decisions relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del), Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), Suzlon Energy Ltd. 354 ITR 630 (Guj) and East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. 224 ITR 624 (SC) could not be now applicable,…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*