Skip to main content

Mere Fulfillment of Conditions u/s 10(23)(c) of IT Act would not make Assessee Eligible for benefit of S. 80G

In CIT v. M/S Rama Educational Society, the division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that benefit of section 80G of the Income Tax Act cannot be granted to assessee merely on ground that it satisfies all the conditions prescribed under section 10(23)(c) of the Income Tax Act. While quashing the ITAT order, the bench confirmed the order of the CIT denying exemption to the assessee for want of regular maintenance of Books of Accounts. Respondent-assessee, a society running a Dental College and Research Centre had availed exemption under s. 80 G of the IT Act. On expiry of the exemption, they made an application for renewal of the same. However, the Commissioner rejected the application on grounds that the department recovered and seized unaccounted cash amount belongs to the assessee during a search and the assessee was not properly maintaining its books of accounts. He was of the opinion that the exemption is not available to the assessee as they does not satisfies condition (iv) of Section 80 G (5) of the Income Tax Act. Before the Tribunal, assessee contended that they are entitled for approval of exemption since it satisfies all conditions under Section 10 (23 C) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and held in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the department approached the High Court. The bench opined that in order to have the advantage of approval under Section 80 G of the Act it is mandatory for it to fulfill the other essential conditions prescribed under Sub-section (5) of Section 80 G of the Act which inter alia vide clause (iv) mandates for the maintenance of regular accounts of receipts and expenditure by such institution or the funds. It was therefore, held that in addition to fulfilment of the conditions as referred to above the approval for registration under Section 80 G of the Act cannot be granted until and unless the institution or the fund is found to be regularly maintaining the accounts of its receipts and expenditure. Comparing both the provisions of section 10(23)(c) and 80G, the bench pointed out that Section 10 (23 C) of the Act operate in a totally different field and the conditions contained in the section are not identical to the conditions as laid down in Section 80 G (5) of the Act. It was also noted that “Section 80 G (iv) contemplates maintenance of regular receipts and expenditure by the concerned institution. It does not talk about the maintenance of separate books of accounts. Therefore, the conditions provide in the two provisions are not identical but at variance as has been illustrated above by the comparison of one of the relevant conditions of the two provisions.” “The fulfilment of conditions under Section 10 (23 C) of the Act is only one of the conditions prescribed under Section 80 G of the Act but besides the said condition other conditions are also necessary to be satisfied for claiming benefit of Section 80 G of the Act. The respondent assessee failed to satisfy one of those conditions as mentioned earlier.”

Read more at: http://www.taxscan.in/mere-fulfillment-conditions-us-1023c-act-not-make-assessee-eligible-benefit-s-80g-allahabad-hc/8079/

Comments

  1. In India, Section 10(23C) of the Act provides for a specific exemption for certain government and non-government colleges and educational institutes. The government has made significant improvements in recent years to the registration process for trusts, institutions, educational or medical institutions governed by section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For more information regarding 10 (23c) Registrations in India , please contact us: 8929218091

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a