Dismissed

Dit (Exemption), Mumbai v. Shree Nashik Panchvati Panjrapola

Bombay HC20 Mar 2017ITXA/1565/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an income tax appeal challenging exemption under Section 11, the High Court held that the question raised did not constitute a substantial question of law as it fell squarely within an existing order (ITA No. 1695 of 2014) regarding commercial activities. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed without examination of the commercial nature of the milk sales.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Dit (Exemption), Mumbai Vs Shree Nashik Panchvati Panjrapola — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1565-14-itxa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1565 OF 2014

¶4

Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

¶5

.. Appellant

¶6

v/s.

¶7

Shree Nashik Panchvati Panjrapole

¶8

..Respondent

¶9

Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w Ms. Padma Divakar, Mr. N.A. Kazi for the appellant

¶10

Mr. N.S. Joshi a/w Ms. Chhaya Asher, Ms. Namrata Shah i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the respondent

¶11

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J. DATED : 20^th MARCH, 2017.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 26^th March, 2014 passed by the

¶14

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is

¶15

in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10.

¶16

The Revenue urges the only following question of law :-

¶17

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that in view of the amendment to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, the activities carried by the assessee were commercial in

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

1565-14-itxa=.doc

nature and therefore, cannot be considered as for a “charitable purpose” under section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961?

¶22

The impugned order dated 26^th March, 2014 of the Tribunal allowed the respondent assessee's appeal which emanated from the order dated 26^th December, 2011 under Section 143(3) of the Act denying the benefit of Section 11 of the Act for subject assessment year. The basis of the denial is that respondent is hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, defining “charitable purpose”. It is an agreed position between the parties that the order we have passed today in Income Tax Appeal No.1695 of 2014 (Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Shree Nashik Panchavati Panjrapole) would equally apply to the present appeal. The Income Tax Appeal No.1695 of 2014 (supra) dealt with cancellation / withdrawal by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 12A of the Act of the respondent assessee's registration. This on the ground that in terms of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, the respondent assessee would not be an institution for charitable purpose.

¶23

However, Mr. Malhotra, on behalf of the Revenue urges that one additional feature he would like to emphasis is the finding of CIT(A) in these proceedings that the milk valued at Rs.1.57 crores has been sold

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

1565-14-itxa=.doc

at market price. We find that the order of the CIT(A) merely records the above fact without giving any evidence to support the conclusion.

¶28

Be that as it may, this would not make any difference to the applicability of the order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No.1695 of 2014 (supra) as in that case reliance was placed upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust (Tax Appeal No.1162 of 2013) decided on 15^th July, 2014. In the above case, the Gujarat High court has held that “the law does not expect the Trust to dispose of its produce at any consideration less than the market value”. This has not been shown to be incorrect.

¶29

Therefore, for the reasons indicated in our order passed today in Income Tax Appeal No.1695 of 2014 (supra), the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.

¶30

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶31

(A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶32

3 of 3

¶33

Uday S. Jagtap

Dit (Exemption), Mumbai v. Shree Nashik Panchvati Panjrapola

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dit (Exemption), Mumbai v. Shree Nashik Panchvati Panjrapola

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarpanch Jaskhar Gram Panchayat and Anr. Vs Ganesh Banzoplast Limited.

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nrc Limited Vs Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Ors.

The Commissioner of Tax-I,Pune Vs Inox Air Products Limited

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs Solapur Zilla Madhyamik Shikshak Va Sevak Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit

The Commissioner of Income Tax-v Vs Kala Gensets Pvt.Ltd.