The Commissioner Of Incometax -- Exemption v. Softwajee Technologies Parks Of India

Signed By:RAM DATTSigning Date:15.10.2024 16:15Certify that the digital and physical file havebeen compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file and no page is missing. $-11, 12 & 13*LN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA1296/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX -- EXEMPTION Appellant Through; .Mr. Ajit Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel. versus SOFTWAjEE TECHNOLOGIES PARKS OF INDIA PARKS OF INDIA OF INDIA INDIA RespondentTlirdugh: Mr. J.K. Singh with Mr. RahulChaudhary and Mr. AveshChaudhary. Advocates. •f " ITA 1.303/2018 rrr1HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX - EXEMPTION TAX - EXEMPTION ' AppellantThrough: Mr, Ajit Shairoa, Sr. Standing.Counsel. versus SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PARKS OF INDIA RespondentTlirough: Mr. J.K. Singh with Mr. RahulChaudhary and Mr. AveshChaudhary, Advocates. +~ I rr A1345/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCdALETAX- EXEMPTION Appellant Through- Mj. Ajit Sharrna, Sr. StandingCounsel. versus SOFT'WAPE TECHNOLOGIES PARKS OF INDIA . ,..., RespondentThrough: Mr. J.K. • Singh with Mr. RahulChaudhary and Mi-. AveshChaudhary, Advocates. ITA Nos J29'e, 1363 & 1345 of 2018 Page J of 4 COBAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE TALWANT SINGH % Q BP E R30.07.2019 1. These are Revenue's appeals against the common impugned orderdated 16'^^ May 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(TTAT') in ITA Nos.843./DEL/2010 (Assessment Year 'AY' 2006-07),21,69/DEL/2011 (AY 2007-08), ITA No.2431/DEL/2011 (AY 2007-08)and ITA No.l470/DEL/2013 (AY 2008-09) respectively. 2. One of the issues urged by the Revenue which is common to AYs2006;07 and 2007-08 is whether the IT AT was right in allowing the claimof the Assessee in, respect of deerped application under Section: 11(1)Explanation 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') notwithstanding thatthe Assessee did not file the requisite intimation within the time periodstipulated in the Act. 3. The Court finds that'm Association o f Corporation and Apex Societiesof Handlooms v, Assistant Director of Inconie-Tax (2013) 351 ITS. 287(Del), it was held by this Court that intimation in Form-10 for thepurposes of claiming the benefit of the Section 11 of the Act could befurnished by the Assessee even dqring the assessment proceedings. Asimilar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court'm Commissioner\of Income Tax-Ill, Pune v. Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 taxman.com396 (Bom). 4. On the facts of the present case, although the Assess.ee did not give theintimation at the time of filing the original returns, adinittedly, theITA Nos. 1296, 13.03 & 1345 of2018 . . Page 2 of 4 intimation was enclosed with the revised return filed by the Assessee. TheCourt accordingly does not find any error having been committed by theIT AT in holding this issue in favour of the Assessee. 5. A common question urged by the Revenue for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 is whether the IT AT was right in granting the benefits of Sections 11and 12 of the Act to the Assessee even though it was involved in businessactivities and was conducting no 'charitable activity'? 6. The ITAT noticed that there was no change in the functions of theAssessee from earlier and it's objects were never disputed by theRevenue authorities at any stage. It was held that the Revenue failed toestablish that the activities carried out by the Assessee were contrary toits objects and JEunctipns. It was unable to be established by the Revenueon facts that the Assessee was carrying on commercial activity. In theearlier A Ys, this issue had been decided against the Revenue as noticedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] in his orderdated 28"^ February 2011 for AY 2007-08. .Consequently, the Courtdeclines to frame, any question on this issue. 6. The ITAT noticed that there was no change in the functions of theAssessee from earlier and it's objects were never disputed by theRevenue authorities at any stage. It was held that the Revenue failed toestablish that the activities carried out by the Assessee were contrary toits objects and JEunctipns. It was unable to be established by the Revenueon facts that the Assessee was carrying on commercial activity. In theearlier A Ys, this issue had been decided against the Revenue as noticedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] in his orderdated 28"^ February 2011 for AY 2007-08. .Consequently, the Courtdeclines to frame, any question on this issue. 7. The third issue which has been raised by the Revenue which is specific.1to AY 2008-09 is whether the ITAT was right in allowing depreciation inassets, the full cost of which was already allowed as application ofincome , in earlier years, even though allowing the same cpuld lead to asituatiou where amount of depreciation would exceed the purchase valueof the assets. 8. It is pointed out by Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel appearingfor the Assessee on advance notice, that this issue is .no longer res integra .( in view of the decision of the Supreine Court in Commissioner ofIncomeTax-Ill, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Foona,(2018) 89 taxman.com 127(SC). The ITAT too followed the saiddecision and decided the issue against the Revenue. 9. The fourth issue raised for AY 2007-08 is whether an amount receivedas advance was in fact utilized by the Assessee for charitable puipose.Here again on facts the IT AT has found in favour of the Assessee, whichfinding has not been shown to be perverse. The Court accordinglydeclines to frame such issue as raised by the Revenue. 10. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. TALWANT SINGH, J. JULY 30, 2019hs ITA Nos. 1296, 1303 & 1345 of20IS