The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
DIT (E) vs. Ahmedabad Management Association (Gujarat High Court)
Proviso to s. 2(15) which denies exemption to a charitable institution carrying on commercial activities does not apply to institutions carrying out relief to the poor, education or medical relief but applies only to those carrying out "advancement of any other object of general public utility"
(iii) On the issue of the Proviso to s. 2(15), the same has been explained in Circular No.11/2008 dated 19/12/2008. From the said Circular it appears that the newly inserted proviso to s. 2(15) of the Act will apply to entities whose purpose is advancement of any other object of general public utility i.e. fourth limb of definition of 'charitable purpose' contained in s. 2(15) and hence such entities will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C) of the Act if they carry on commercial activities. The Proviso will not apply in respect of the first three limbs of s. 2(15) i.e. relief to the poor; education or medical relief. Thus, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor; education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable purpose' even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of the commercial activities.
Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court)
S. 50C: If the stamp duty valuation is higher than the consideration received, the AO must refer the valuation to the DVO even if there is no request by the assessee
No inference can be made that the assessee has accepted the price fixed by the District Sub Registrar for stamp duty purposes as the fair market value of the property because the assessee has nothing to do in the matter. Stamp duty is payable by the purchaser & it is for the purchaser to either accept it or dispute it. The assessee could not, on the basis of the price fixed by the Sub-Registrar, have claimed anything more than the agreed consideration of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs which, according to the assessee, was the highest prevailing market price. It would follow automatically that his case was that the fair market value of the property could not be Rs.35 lakhs as assessed by the District Sub Registrar. In a case of this nature the AO should, in fairness, have given an option to the assessee to have the valuation made by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) contemplated u/s 50C. As a matter of course, in all such cases the AO should give an option to the assessee to have the valuation made by the DVO. The valuation by the DVO is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty. The legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a fair treatment to the citizen/taxpayer. There is no reason why the machinery provided by the legislature should not be used and the benefit thereof should be refused. Even in a case where no such prayer, the AO, discharging a quasi judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law.
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
No comments:
Post a Comment