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:

  • 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…
  • 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. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court) Thus two port-folios one for "Investment" and other for "Trading". Besides for the earlier years the Revenue accepted the claim of short term capital gain. Thus the income has to be taxed as short term capital gain. We are of the view that respondent holding the shares for a short…
  • PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation…
  • CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
  • Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…

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 *

*