account where the leased assets were actually being used by the appellant for more than the amount of Rs.6,80,00,000/- deposit paid against investments/payable for assets of the leaser (M/s Kalyani Education Pvt. Ltd.) to the extent of Rs.7,70,00,000/- (Exhibited on pg.12 of the assessment order). After considering the above facts and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, I find that there is no case of any benefit given/derived by specified person. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the AO and denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the appellant for the year, solely based on the issue of undue benefit to specified person, is unjustified for being not based on facts hence liable to be rejected. In view of the above facts and the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kamla Town Trust Alld.) 279 ITR which clearly supports the ground of the appellant, where it was that - "Even when there is some transaction involving the interested persons, it is not sufficient to attract section 13, unless some benefit is proved by the revenue." Hence, it is held that there is no applicability of section 13 of the I.T. Act on the facts and issue during this year as decided by AO for denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act.
