CIT v. Seth Vinod Kumar Somani Charitable Trust

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 0295 (SC) : (2020) 269 TAXMAN 0059

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 261 Section 80G(5)(vi)

Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of P&H High Court in CIT v. Seth Vinod Kumar Somani Charitable Trust [ITA No. 47 of 2018, dt. 15-5-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3335 (P&H-HC)], whereby the High Court held that purchase of land and building by itself would not be sufficient to conclude that the assessee is involved in non-charitable activities, that CIT(E) before denying approval under section 80G(5)(vi) was required to record a definite finding of fact that the funds utilized for land and building was being utilised for private purposes and not for charitable purpose, the action of the assessee-society, in such circumstances, could not be held to be for non-charitable purposes, therefore, the CIT(E) had acted on mere suspicion and conjectures to deny approval to the assessee-society, the Supreme Court condoned delay and not finding any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissed the SLP.

Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Deduction under section 80G - Approval under section 80G(5)(vi)

Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of P&H High Court in CIT v. Seth Vinod Kumar Somani Charitable Trust [ITA No. 47 of 2018, dt. 15-5-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3335 (P&H-HC)], whereby the High Court held that purchase of land and building by itself would not be sufficient to conclude that the assessee is involved in non-charitable activities, that CIT(E) before denying approval under section 80G(5)(vi) was required to record a definite finding of fact that the funds utilized for land and building was being utilised for private purposes and not for charitable purpose, the action of the assessee-society, in such circumstances, could not be held to be for non-charitable purposes, therefore, the CIT(E) had acted on mere suspicion and conjectures to deny approval to the assessee-society.Held: The Supreme Court condoned delay and not finding any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissed the SLP.