Ita/311/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. M/S Mangalore Urban Development Authority

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE 11 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH| AND| THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN) INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.31L1 OF ZOL BETWEEN 1PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS)MANGALURU.MANGALURU. 2 |THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (E), CIRCLE 1(1), MANGALURU, C.R. BUILDING, 2 FLOOR, ATTAVAR, MANGALURU., .. APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND M/S. MANGALORE URBAN _DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,URVA STORES, ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALURU., .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO)DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR-SUCHOTHER.QUESTIONS.OF|LAW|ASMAY|BE|FORMULATED BY THE HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT|AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 1-9-201/|PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A.BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS 1I.T.ANO.2157/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FORORDERS, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE|FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for theappellants. 2. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: /.WhetherOf)thefactsandIn|thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal! Isrignt in nolaing that tne assessee is|eligible for carry forward of deficit of theassessee to the subsequent years when|the income of a charitable of religioustrust/institution1S requiredtobe| computedDy|applyinggeneralcommercial principles witnout referring tothe reguiar provisions of Income Tax as|contained under Cnapter-IV and as sucn.wnileArrivingatthe|IncomeofcdCnaritabie or religious’ trust/institution,various heaas of income as contemplated|under Section 14 and specific provisions|ofcomputationofIncomeUnder.respective neads as envisaged under|Sections 15 to 59 are not pressed intoaction 7. i.Whether on tne facts and in thecircumstancesOf|theCase,theTribunal is right in law in holding tnat|the assessee /s entitled to carry|forward of excess application witnout|appreciating that tne provisions of|Sections 70 to 80 of I.T. Act are not|applicable to trusts as they only deal|with carry forward and set off of loss.and not excess expenditure or deficit? TinWhether on the facts and in the!circumstancesOf|the|CdSé@,the|Tribunal is right in law in holding tnat|the assessee j/s entitled for claimUnder Section 11 even whnen tnassessee is hit by First proviso to sub-section (15) of Section 2 of tne Act?circumstancesOf|the|CdSé@,the|Tribunal is right in law in holding tnat|the assessee j/s entitled for claimUnder Section 11 even whnen tnassessee is hit by First proviso to sub-section (15) of Section 2 of tne Act? IV.Whether on the facts and in the!circumstancesOf|theCase,theTribunal ts rignt in law in allowing|assessee’s claim of carry forward ofloss particularly when the return of|incomeWdadNog|filedIntime prescribed under the provisions. ofSection 139(1) of the Act?circumstancesOf|theCase,theTribunal ts rignt in law in allowing|assessee’s claim of carry forward ofloss particularly when the return of|incomeWdadNog|filedIntime prescribed under the provisions. ofSection 139(1) of the Act? 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits tnattne first and the second substantial questions of law are)covered by the assessee’s own case in Income Tax AppealNo.173 of 2016, disposed off on 30-8-2018. The thirdsubstantial question of law is covered by the judgment of.this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.110 of 2016, disposed| off on 24-10-2017. The fourth substantial question of law|does not arise for consideration. | In view of the submission made, the substantialquestions of law are answered in favour of the assesee andagainst the Revenue. The appeal is, accordingly, disposedoff. SD/-JUDGE| SD/-|JUDGE kKVK