The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad V. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Gandhinagar

ITA 808/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7729 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O.P. SHARMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Retrospective amendment; Set aside
• Section: 12; 11; 143(3); 12AA; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . N o . 5 1 8/ A h d /2 0 18 ( A s s e s s me nt Y ea r : 20 1 4- 15 ) G uj a r a t I nd u st r i a l De ve l op m e n t C o r p o r a ti on B l oc k N o. 3 , 4 & 5, U d h yo g B h a va n, S e c to r-1 1, G a nd hin a g a r V s . A C I T ( E) , C ir c l e- 1, A h m e d a b ad [ P A N N o . A A B C G 8 0 3 3 D ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I .T .A . N o . 8 0 8/ A h d /2 0 18 ( A s s e s s me nt Y ea r : 20 1 4- 15 ) D C I T (E) C ir cl e - 1, A h m e d a ba d V s . G uj a r at I nd us t r ia l D e v el op me nt C o rp or a ti o n 2 n d F l oo r , B lo c k N o . 3 ,4 & 5 , U d h yo g B ha v an , G a nd hi na ga r [ P A N N o . A A B C G 80 3 3 D ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I .T .A . N o . 3 2 9/ A h d /2 0 19 ( A s s e s s me nt Y ea r : 20 1 5- 16 ) G uj a r a t I nd u st r i a l De ve l op m e n t C o r p o r a ti on B l oc k N o. 3 t o 5, U d yo g B h av an , Se c to r-1 1 , G a n d hin aga r V s . D C I T ( E) C ir c l e- 1, A h m e d a b ad [ P A N N o . A A B C G 8 0 3 3 D ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I .T .A . N o . 3 0 8/ A h d /2 0 19 ( A s s e s s me nt Y ea r : 20 1 5- 16 ) A C I T (E) C ir cl e - 1, A h m e d a ba d V s . G uj a r at I nd us t r ia l D e v el op me nt C o rp or a ti o n B l o ck N o. 4 , 2 n d F l o or , U d yo g B h ava n Se ct o r -1 1, G a nd h in ag ar [P A N N o . A A B C G 8 0 3 3 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 2 - Assessee by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. With Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT DR D a t e of H ea r i ng 14.09.2021 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 25.11.2021 O R D E R PER BENCH: The captioned cross appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 22.01.2018 & 14.12.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad arising out of the separate orders dated 30.12.2016 & 27.12.2017 passed by the Ld. ACIT(E) & DCIT(E), Circle-1, Ahmedabad under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. ITA No. 518/Ahd/2018(A.Y. 2014-15)(Assessee’s Appeal):- 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. Erred in rejecting assessee’s plea that for all practical purpose being an agent of State Gov. of Gujarat and by virtue of provisions contained in Article 289 of the constitution of India, it cannot be subjected to assessment and levy of tax under the Income Tax Act. 2. Erred in holding receipts from premium on land given on lease are recurring and operational receipts, by considering 40% of lease income as revenue receipt 3. Erred in holding assessee cannot claim expenditure on capital assets as an application of funds and also not allowing claim of depreciation on the same considering the amount spent has not been offered to tax 4. Erred in directing to consider all receipts as income/revenue receipts irrespective of the facts assessee has treated the same as Balance sheet item 5. Erred in confirming that assessee has violated provisions of section 11(5) of the Act with regards to investment made in Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd and GLFL thereby attracting provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act Erred in not considering the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat HC in Orpat Charitable Trust while applying provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act 6. General” ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 3 - 3. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue in respect of Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 5 are covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2700/Ahd/2016 & 427/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 . In fact, the activities carried out by the assessee company are in the nature of ‘advancement of other general public utility’ in the nature of trade/commerce/business and therefore, the activities carried out by the assessee cannot be reckoned as attributable to ‘charitable purpose’ within the meaning to Section 2(15) of the Act as alleged. Accordingly, benefit of exemption has been denied to the assessee claimed under Section 11 of the Act. However, the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12 held that the assessee company cannot be said to be conducting affairs solely on commercial lines with a motive to earn profit and consequently proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act does not trigger in the case of the assessee. Such view of the Coordinate Bench has been ultimately affirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (2017) 80 taxmann.com 366 (Guj.). In that view of the matter the Ld. Counsel prayed for setting aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO in the light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and the judgment passed by the Jurisdictional High Court and to consider the claim of the assessee accordingly. A copy of the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in the matter of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation vs. DCIT(E) for the A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 has also been submitted before us. While dealing with the identical issue the Coordinate Bench has been pleased to observe as follows:- “7. We have considered the rival submissions. The core issue in controversy is correctness of applicability of proviso to s.2(15) in due facts of the case. We find that ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 4 - the identical issue arose in assessee’s own case in the preceding three assessment years. We find that the Coordinate Bench has determined the issue in favour of assessee and held that proviso to section 2(15) does not apply in the facts of the case. It consequently upheld the claim of the assessee that object of the assessee are for carrying out the activity for charitable purpose. The Revenue carried the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench in appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court without any success. The catch notes of the judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court are extracted hereunder:- Section 2(15), read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable purpose (Objects of general public utility) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Whether where assessee-corporation was constituted under Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, for purpose of securing and assisting rapid and orderly establishment and organization of industrial areas and industrial estates in State of Gujarat, and for purpose of establishing commercial centers in connection with establishment and organization of such industries it could not be said that activities carried out by assessee were either in nature of trade, commerce or business, for a Cess or Fee or any other consideration so as to attract proviso to section 2(15) and same could be said to be for charitable purpose and, consequently, assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 - Held, yes [Paras 15 and 17] [In favour of assessee].” 8. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in essence upheld that assessee was not involved in the activities in the spirit of commercial accommodation and therefore falls within the ambit of definition of ‘charitable purpose’ contemplated under s.2(15) of the Act. In view ofthe foregoing, we find that the relief sought by the assessee to the extent that the activities carried on by the assessee should be recognized to be of charitable nature requires to be endorsed. However, all other issues raised in the respective appeals of the assessee and revenue would require re- examination in the light of conclusion drawn in favour of assessee towards applicability of section 2(15) of the Act as noted above. Thus, all other issues are kept open for re-examination at the end of the AO. 9. In the result, cross-appeals of the assessee as well as revenue in ITA No.2738/Ahd/2016 & 2700/Ahd/2016 relevant to AY 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of directions noted hereinabove. ITA No.427/Ahd/2017 – AY 2013-14 - Assessee’s appeal and ITA No.544/Ahd/2017 – AY 2013-14 - Revenue’s appeal 10. The directions and findings in ITA Nos.2700/Ahd/2016 and ITA No.2738/Ahd/2016 for AY 2012-13 would apply mutatis mutandis to both the cross- appeals in ITA Nos.427/Ahd/2017 & 544/Ahd/2017 relevant to AY 2013-14. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO for AY 2013-14 is also set aside and restored back to his file for reexamination and for de novo framing of the assessment order in consonance with directions given in AY 2012-13(supra). ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 5 - 11. In the result, cross-appeals of the assessee and Revenue in ITA Nos.427/Ahd/2017 and 544/Ahd/2017 relevant to AY 2013-14 are allowed for statistical purposes.” Respectfully relying upon the order passed by the Jurisdictional High Court and the order passed by the Coordinate Bench as mentioned hereinabove we pass orders directing the Ld. AO to grant relief to the assessee in terms of the observation made therein. 4. Since it has also been decided and held that proviso to Section 2(15) does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case and the claim of the assessee that object of the assessee are for carrying out activity for charitable purpose has been upheld, ground No. 4 in assessee’s appeal has become academic. ITA No. 808/Ahd/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)(Revenue’s Appeal):- 5. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:- “1. Erred in wrongly applying provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act and holding activity of assessee are not under the “advancement of general public utility” 2. Erred in allowing exemption under section 11 & 12 of the Act 3. Erred in allowing operational expense @60% of the total premium received on land/shades without appreciating the facts and examination of the actual expense incurred. 4. Erred in deleting addition of Rs. 12,00,667/- made on a/c of deemed rent income 5. General” 6. Ground No.1:- At the very onset of the proceeding the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 278/Ahd/2013, 493&2346/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12 copy whereof has also been submitted before us. Such submission has not been controverted by the Ld. DR with all his fairness. ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 6 - 7. While dealing with the issue the Ld. Tribunal has been pleased to observe as follows:- “29. After considering the entire facts in totality, in the light of the decisions discussed hereinabove and also drawing support from the speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister and subsequent clarifications issued by the CBDT within the frame work of the amended provisions of Sec. 2(15) of the Act, in our considered view, there was no material which may suggest that the appellant company was conducting its affairs solely on commercial lines with a motive to earn profit. There is also no material brought on record which could suggest that the appellant company deviated from its objects for which it has been constituted. In our humble opinion and understanding of law, the proviso to Sec. 2(15) of the Act is not applicable on the facts of the case. 30. Accordingly, we hold that the order of the First Appellate Authority is erroneous and bad in law. The appellant succeeds. 31. We direct the A.O. to decide the claim of deductions made by the assessee in the light of our finding that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act does not apply in the case of the assessee. We direct accordingly. 32. Before parting, the ld. D.R. heavily relied upon another amendment in the Act by way of introduction of section 13(8) which came through Finance Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009 which provided that the benefit of Section 11 or Section 12 would not be available if the receipts from the activity in the nature of trade or business exceeded the threshold provided for in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Section 13 (8) of the Act reads as under:- [(8)“Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude any income from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof if the provisions of the first proviso to clause (15) of section 2 become applicable in the case of such person in the said previous.”] 33. A perusal of the aforementioned section shows that it would be applicable if the provisions of the first proviso to clause 15 of Section 2 become applicable. Since, we have held that the first proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable in the case of the assessee on the facts of the case. 34. As mentioned elsewhere, the facts of ITA No. 493/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2010- 11, ITA No. 2346/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12 are identical to the facts of the appeal decided by us in ITA No. 278/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10, for assessment year 2010- 11 & 2011-12. We hold accordingly with similar directions to the A.O. 35. In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed.” ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 7 - 8. Ground No.2:- This ground is covered in assessee’s own case by the order passed by the Coordinate Bench which was further been confirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GIDC (2017) taxmann.com 366 (Guj.) as the submission made by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee which has not been controverted on factually or legally by the Ld. DR. 9. We have heard the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials on record. 10. The crux of the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GIDC (2017) 83 taxmann.com 366 (Guj.) appearing from the head notes are as follows:- “Section 2(15), read with section Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Charitable purpose (Objects of general public utility) – Assessment year 2009-10 – Whether where assessee- corporation was constituted under Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, for purpose of securing and assisting rapid and orderly establishment and organization of industrial areas and industrial estates in State of Gujarat, and for purpose of establishing commercial centers in connection with establishment and organization of such industries it could not be said that activities carried out by assessee were either in nature of trade, commerce or business, for a Cess or Free or any other consideration so as to attract proviso to section 2(15) and same could be said to be for charitable purpose and, consequently, assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 – Held, yes [Paras 15 and 17] [In favour of assessee].” 11. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing exemption under Section 11 & 12 of the Act and hence the same is hereby confirmed. Revenue’s this ground of appeal fails. 12. Ground No. 3:- Since this ground of appeal has already been directed to be decided by the Ld. AO in ITA No. 2700/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 427/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 by the Coordinate Bench by ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 8 - its order dated 10.11.2017. Respectfully relying upon the same we direct the Ld. AO to decide the issue on the same line. 13. Ground No. 4:- The addition of Rs. 12,00,667/- on account of deemed rent is the subject matter before us. 14. The assessee was issued with a show-cause notice dated 09.12.2016 as to why deemed rent from various fact/unoccupied plots/shade should not be added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee made out the case that no notional income can be taxed in the hands of the assessee claiming exemption under Section 11 as the income should be computed on commercial principles. Such plea was taken in view of the particular fact that the vacant plots under consideration are mere upon plot and the provision of Section 23 does not cover the land which is not aberrant to any house property. The conditions laid down under Section 23, therefore, is not fulfilled and hence question of deemed rent under Section 23 does not and cannot arise as regards such vacant plots. Such plea of the assessee was not accepted by the Ld. AO and the same was added to the total income of the assessee which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). While deleting the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted the following:- “10.1 On this issue the appellant has submitted in the statement of facts as under:- “6. Addition of deemed rent of vacant quarters: 6.1 In this connection, appellant states that it is a corporation duly registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence, the provision of deemed rent is not applicable. However, by considering the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, Assessing Officer has assessed the appellant’s income as a regular business income and accordingly made an addition of Rs. 12,00,667 as a deemed rent. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in its order passed dated 10/01/2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y. 2011-12, has considered the appellant as charitable ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 9 - entity and stated that first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the appellant on the facts of the case. Therefore, the provision of deemed rent is not applicable in the case of appellant as no notional income can be taxed as per provisions of section 11 of the Act. 6.2 In view of aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the reliance placed by your good honor in the case of Radhadevi Dalmia V/s CIT 125 ITR 134 is not relevant as per the facts of the case as appellant is a trust duly registered under section 12AA of the Act for carrying out the charitable activity. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the above judicial pronouncement is entirely misplaced and no adverse inference should be drawn in the case of the Appellant.”” Considering the entire aspect of the matter we find that when the appellant has an exempt entity Chapter-3 of the matter would be applicable in its case and not the provision of Chapter-4 of the Act. Therefore, the addition of deemed rent would fall under the head income from house property under Chapter-4 of the Act and therefore, the addition is not sustainable. Considering this aspect the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition in our considered view is just and proper and so as to warrant interference. 15. Ground No. 5 is general in nature. There is no need of separate adjudication. ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019(A.Y. 2015-16)(Assessee’s Appeal):- 16. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee reads as under:- “1. Erred in rejecting assessee’s plea that for all practical purpose being an agent of State Govt. of Gujarat and by virtue of provisions contained in Article 289 of the constitution of India, it cannot be subjected to assessment and levy of tax under the Income Tax Act 2. Erred in holding receipts from premium on land given on lease are recurring and operational receipts, by considering 40% of lease income as revenue receipt 3. Erred in confirming that assessee has violated provisions of section 11(5) of the Act with regards to investment made n Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd and GLFL thereby attracting provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 10 - Erred in not considering the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat HC in Orpat Charitable Trust while applying provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act 6. General” 17. Ground No.1:- The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee does not want to press this ground. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 18. Ground No. 2:- This ground has already been decided by us in ITA No. 518/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Ground No. 2 therein. In the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. 19. Ground No.3:- This ground has already been decided by us in ITA No. 518/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Ground No. 5 therein. In the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. 20. Ground No. 4 is general in nature. There is no need of separate adjudication. ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019(A.Y. 2015-16)(Revenue’s Appeal):- 21. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:- “1. Erred in wrongly applying provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act and holding activity of assessee are not under the “advancement of general public utility” 2. Erred in allowing exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act 3. Erred in allowing proportionate cost of lease premium of land amounting to 60% of total receipts as against total the total receipts of Rs. 703,30,00,837/- 4. Erred in deleting addition of Rs. 8,02,879/- made on a/c of deemed rent income 5&6. Erred in directing to allow depreciation as per normal commercial principles and rule of accountancy when as per newly inserted amendment in section 11(6), depreciation is not allowable to the assessee from A.Y. 2015-16 7. General” ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 11 - 22. Ground No. 1:- This ground has already been decided by us in ITA No. 808/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Ground No. 1 therein. In the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. 23. Ground No. 2:- This ground has already been decided by us in ITA No. 808/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Ground No. 2 therein. In the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. 24. Ground No. 3:- This ground has already been decided by us in ITA No. 808/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Ground No. 3 therein. In the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. 25. Ground No. 4:- This ground has already been decided by us in ITA No. 808/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 in Ground No. 4 therein. In the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. 26. Ground No. 5&6:- This ground relates to the direction upon the Ld. AO to allow depreciation as per normal commercial principles and rule of accountancy when as per newly inserted amendment in section 11(6), depreciation is not allowable to the assessee from A.Y. 2015-16. 27. While disposing of the ground the Ld. CIT(A) discussed as follows: ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 12 - “9.1 On the issue of depreciation, the appellant during the appellate proceedings submitted as under: 3.17 Without prejudice to foregoing, Appellant states that the premium received of Rs. 703,30,00,837 if for plot of land and shed given on long term lease of 99 years. In view of the same, such whole premium cannot be taxed in the first year and should be amortized over a period of 99 years. 9.2 Keeping in mind the findings given at para 6.6 above and also considering that the appellant is to be treated as an exempt entity, at para 8 above I have given directions to the AO for computing the income of the appellant. While directing the AO with regard to computation of income, I have asked the AO to allow capital expenditure as well as depreciation as application of income subject to certain verification. Similarly with regard to allowing the excess of expenditure to be set off against the income of the year under consideration or of subsequent years, I have directed the AO to allow the same subject to verification of certain details as mentioned at para 8 above. Thus, the ground nos. 9, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 of appeal are allowed subject to the directions given at para 8 above.” 28. Taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter we find no ambiguity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We further clarify that the Ld. AO is required to re-examine the issue afresh in accordance with law considering the assessee as a Charitable Institution. 29. Ground No. 7 is general in nature. There is no need of separate adjudication. 30. In the combined results, the appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/11/2021 Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/11/2021 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY ITA No.518/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.808/Ahd/2018 ITA No. 329/Ahd/2019 & ITA No. 308/Ahd/2019 Asst.Year –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 13 - आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 27.09.2021 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 28.09.2021 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .11.2021 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .11.2021 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 25 .11.2021 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 25 .11.2021 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.......................................... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... 10. Date of Despatch of the Order.......................................... 11.