The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. Breach Candy Hospital Trust
High Court
06 Dec 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. Breach Candy Hospital Trust
Date of order
06 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. Breach Candy Hospital Trust, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 1.The question raised in this appeal is; whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire income of the assessee including the interest income was eligible for exemption under Section 10(22A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Decision: The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.420 OF 2005
The Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Breach Candy Hospital Trust..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Jehangir Mistry, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rajiv Singh, Mr.Sameer Chitnis, Mr.Yuvraj Singh i/by Crawford Bayley & Co. for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 6[th] December, 2010.
1.The question raised in this appeal is; whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire income of the assessee including the interest income was eligible for exemption under Section 10(22A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following its decision in the case of National Health and Education Society. The learned counsel for the Revenue states that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the
Tribunal in the case of National Health and Education Society has been dismissed for non-removal of office objections. Similar appeals filed by the Revenue have also been dismissed for non-removal of office objections and since no steps have been taken for setting aside those orders, the order of the Tribunal in those cases have attained finality.
3.In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
(R.M. Savant, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.