In addition to the regular cricket matches, the assessee is conducting commercially oriented matches like Indian Premier League (IPL). Players of IPL teams are selected by sponsors to play under their brand names. Players are selected through auctions. Players choose that sponsor which offers the highest amount of money. IPL Matches are played with hype and celebration so as to create more and more revenue out of sale of telecast rights. All these activities when read together, one has to come to a finding that the entire activities of the Association is poised towards generating huge amount of income through the game of cricket.
After perusing the findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), it is evident to us that the assessee had earlier purchased the windmill in question, generated wind energy, sold the windmill to its sister concern and got the same leased back and raised claim of deduction in hand. The moot question before us is as to whether the said course of action adopted by the assessee is hit by section 80IA(3) or not. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the said provision, which reads as under:
Assessee had given Assessing Officer a short description of an allocation of expenses based on which it had preferred a claim under Section 80-IB, but, unless and until assessee could make a meaningful link of the basis adopted by it for such allocation of expenses, with its eventual claim of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, it could not be considered as a proper and sufficient submission of details enabling a rationale decision to be reached regarding the quantum or allowability of its claim.
The assessees are availing loans from SNBFCL and passing over the loans to various Self Help Groups (SHGs) working under them. In fact, the loan amounts are not utilized by the assessee trusts. They are utilized by the SHGs working under the trusts. The ultimate payer of the interest is not the assessee trusts, but the SHGs.
Assessing Officer was carried away by the original return filed by the assessee, wherein originally the income admitted in the course of search was not returned by it. But the fact is that the assessee had filed a revised return before completing the assessment.
In the present case, the assessees being the builders, had the option to recognize their income either on percentage completion method or on project completion method. Therefore, it was not certain to hold that the assessees were liable at all to file returns under section 139(1). Whether the assessees had recognized their income for the impugned assessment years is also not clear. The returns were filed after search made under section 132 but before the issue of notice under section 153A.
Assessee eligible for S. 54EC benefit of Rs. 50 Lakh each made in two different financial years but within six months from transfer of capital asset. Only question that arises is whether proviso to Section 54EC(1) would limit the claim of exemption to Rs. 50 lakhs. Said proviso mentions that investment on which an assessee could claim exemption under Section 54EC(1) shall not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs during a financial year.
On going through the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it can be seen that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to deduction under sec.80IB of the Act since the assessee unit is located in an industrially back-ward State specified in VIII Schedule and is governed by the provisions of sub-sec. (iv) of Sec.80IB of the I.T. Act. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by analyzing the provisions of the Act held that the assessees,
The assessee had declared exempt income and on asking of the Assessing Officer, it had itself computed the disallowance amount of Rs. 4,83,414/- under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and exactly the same very amount has been disallowed. In our opinion, once the assessee itself computed the disallowance, instead of challenging the very applicability of the provisions, we do not find any force in the cross objections preferred by the assessee. Consequently, we do not find any merit either in the appeal filed by the Revenue or Cross Objections at the behest of the assessee.
In the instant case, a perusal of the object clause of the company shows that it has been incorporated with the aim of providing education, facilitate social and economic empowerment, economic development programs, literacy programs, training programs for villagers and downtrodden people. How these objects are to be achieved should be left to the assessee. The fact that the assessee has been incorporated under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 show that it has been formed for promoting charity or any other useful object and intends to apply its profits, if any or other income in promoting its objects. In other words, it’s a non-profit earning organization.
