Ita/2/2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Educational And Cultural Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1/TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2027) PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL| 1LT.A. NO.2 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAEXEMPTIONS, 6TH FLOORUNITY BUILDING ANNEXEMISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-56002/. D2 |THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXEXEMPTIONS PRESENT ADDRESSDCIT EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1 |61TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXEMISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) _... APPELLANTS AND* BHAGWAN MAHAVEER MEMORIAL JAINEDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUSTNO.285, 2ND FLOOR, ESWARI MANSIONAVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560002PAN-AABTS 149/7G. (BY MR. SHARATH S, ADV., FOR.MR. TATA KRISHNA, ADV.,) ~. RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.08.2019 PASSEDIN ITA NO.1731/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL AND SET ASIDE.THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1731/BANG/2016 DATED:21.08.2019 FORASSESSMENT YEAR J2JO1L1L-LZ2 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRMORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE.ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Heard. This appeal is admitted on the following substantialquestion of law: “Whether.Of)thefactsand|Inthecircumstances of the case and in law, the learnedTribunal has erred in allowing the claim of the|assessee for carry forward of deficit, ignoring the|fact that there is no express provision in the'Income Tax Act 1961 allowing sucn claim, and)without appreciating the fact that this would havethe effect of granting double benefit to the)assessee, first as accumulation of income under|section 11(1)(a) or corpus donation under section|11(1)(d) in earlier/current year, or exempt income.under section 10(34), and then as application ofincome under section 11(1)(a) in subsequent:years whicn Is legally not permissible?” Learned counsel for the assesee submits that the|aforesaid substantial question of law has been answered in|nis favour vide judgment dated 20.01.2021 passed in ITANo.80/2016. On the other hand, learned counsel for therevenue could not dispute the aforesaid submission. In view of the aforesaid submissions and for the|reasons assigned in the judgment dated 20.01.2021 in ITANo.80/2016, the substantial question of law is answeredagainst the revenue.| In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,the same fails and is hereby dismissed. © Sd/-—JUDGE Sd/-—JUDGE