The assessee is a society registered under section 12A of the Act, and was approved under section 80G of the Act. It was established with a specific purpose, object and mission to promote the quality of construction and bring in international standards, and undertook activities for the promotion of education, training, research and imparting professionalism and skill formation at all levels of construction. For this a joint venture company H was constituted for holding exhibitions and also to promote the object and mission of the assessee. For the assessment year 2002-03 the Assessing Officer held that the investment of the assessee in the joint venture was in violation of section 11(5) and rejected the claim for exemption under section 11. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal affirmed his order. On appeal dismissing the appeals, (i) that the assessee-society had acted contrary to its purpose, objects and mission and could not claim exemption under section 11. There were concurrent findings by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal based on facts available on record that the assessee had earned profits in contravention of its mission and objects. In addition to the establishment of a joint venture, the assessee had also parted with hundred acres of land allotted by the Government to the joint venture which had utilised the land for purpose of holding exhibitions of all natures and in the process, had earned income in the form of rent. The joint venture had also used the land for commercial purposes by allotting the land to other commercial establishments. These aspects had been duly considered by the Assessing Officer and the appellate authorities who had rejected the exemption under section 11. The deviation and contravention disentitled the society from claiming the benefit of exemption under section 11. That the contention of the assessee that the Tribunal could have restricted the denial of exemption under section 11 to the extent of investment made in the joint venture could not be accepted for the reason that the amount of investment already carried out by the assessee in the joint venture, coupled with the fact that the assessee had parted with hundred acres of land to be used by the joint venture company for gaining rental and other income and the rental income earned by the joint venture having been shared with the assessee to some extent, in contravention of the object, purpose and mission for which the assessee was established. That the Government instructions or Government orders on the basis of which the assessee had received funds were no longer in existence but were struck down by the court. In view of passing of G. O. Ms. No. 92, dated May 19, 1998, by the State Government, the corpus amount generated by the assessee was not voluntary contribution and therefore, the amount invested by the assessee in the joint venture company could not be treated as group corpus fund. The amount of investment in shares of the joint venture company and the transfer of hundred acres of land by the assessee to the joint venture company were covered under section 13(1)(d). Therefore, the assessee-society rendered itself disentitled to the benefit under section 11 in view of violation of section 11(5)  Finance Act, 1983 ([1983] 142 ITR (St.) 13),  (AY.2002-03)