Commissioner Of Incometax, (Exemptions v. Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh Foundationthrough:none

$~16*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA No. 614/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, (EXEMPTIONS) ..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior StandingCounselandMs.BhuvneshwariPathak, Advocate. versus DR. BHAI MOHAN SINGH FOUNDATIONThrough:None. ..... Respondent CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHO R D E R%16.08.2017 1. The matter is taken up today as 14[th]August, 2017 was declared a holidayon account of Janmashtami. C.M. No. 28691/2017 (exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA No. 614/2017 3. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(‘Act’) by the Revenue against the order dated 11[th]January, 2017 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2803/Del/2013 forthe Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2007-08. ITA 614/2017 4. The Revenue is aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’] and ITAT with regard to two issues.The first issue concerns the shares held by the Assessee in the Delhi GuestHouse Pvt. Ltd. (‘DGHPL’). The CIT (A) and the ITAT held that as a resultof a dispute which arose amongst the family members of Dr. Bhai MohanSingh, the Assessee was restrained from converting the shares held inDGHPL to other permissible forms of investment before the time limitprescribed in clause (iia) of proviso to Section 13(1) (d) of the Act. Theconversion could ultimately take place only in 2012 after the restraint waslifted. In view of the above concurrent factual finding, no question of lawarises for determination on this aspect. 5. The second issue concerns the payment of Rs. 3.33 crores as charges forconversion of the property held by DGHPL from leasehold to freehold. Thisissue is linked with the earlier issue regarding the shareholding in DGHPL.The conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold, of the entitywhose shares were held by the Assessee could not in the circumstances besaid to be application of income for non-charitable purposes. Consequently,no substantial question of law arises on this aspect as well. 6. The appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J AUGUST 16, 2017/dk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J ITA 614/2017