RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

CO 55/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Ritnand Balved Education Foundation, a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, and sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, which was under scrutiny for its tax returns for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The primary issues revolved around the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B and 143(3) r.w.s 260 of the Act, which were contested by the assessee. The CIT(A) had reversed many of these additions, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal examined various grounds including the application of income for charitable purposes, payments to specified persons, and the principle of consistency in tax assessments over different years. The Tribunal's decision favored the assessee, emphasizing the need for consistency and the proper application of sections 11 and 13 of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41733 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs Krupanidhi Education Trust, CIT (Exemption) vs Krupanidhi Education Trust, DIT(E) Vs Agrim Charan Foundation, DIT (Exemption) v Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust, CIT vs Audyogik Shikshan Mandal, CIT v. Working Women's Forum
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VED JAIN; UMA UPADHYAY
• Assessee Lawyers: ANU KRISHNA AGARWAL; THESE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN DULY OFFERED
• Keywords: Set aside; Revenue expenditure; Question of law; Depreciation; Fair market value; Rule of consistency; Capital expenditure; TDS; Rectification of order; Charitable institution; Maximum Marginal Rate
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 250; 154; 48; 11; 139(1); 43; 22; 12A; 13; 234B; 80G; 20

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.143 & 144/Del/2024 [Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19] DCIT(E) Circle-2(1) New Delhi vs Ritnand Balved Education Foundation, E-27, Defence Colony New Delhi-110024 PAN-AAATR7314Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 [In ITA Nos.143 & 144/Del/2024] [Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19] Ritnand Balved Education Foundation, E-27, Defence Colony New Delhi-110024 PAN-AAATR7314Q vs DCIT(E) Circle-2(1) New Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal, CIT DR Respondent by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Date of Hearing 18.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2025 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The captioned appeals arise from the consolidated orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 16.11.2023 and 14.11.2023 passed under s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] emanating from assessment orders dated 30.03.2023 and 29.06.2022 passed under s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B and 143(3) r.w.s 260 of the Act by the Assessing Officer [AO] for the Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 2 2. In these Revenue appeals, the assessee has also filed Cross-objection No.55/Del/2024 (In ITA No.143/Del/2024) for AY 2017-18 and Cross-Objection No.56/Del/2024 (In ITA No.144/Del/2024) for AY 2018-19. ITA No.143/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2017-18] (Revenue’s appeal) C.O.55/Del/2024 [Assessment Year :2017-18] (Assessee’s Cross-Objection) 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a society registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 and is also registered under s. 12A of the Act. The assessee society (trust/institution) as may be called, is also notified under s. 80G of the Act. As per the aims and objects stated in the Memorandum, the assessee society is formed with the object to establish educational institutions, schools, polytechnics, vocational, management training institutes and colleges etc. The assessee society is an umbrella entity for various educational institutions being run under the name of ‘AMITY’ with the setting up of schools way back in 1991, the society has set up university, schools, colleges across all fields like science, technology, medicines etc. These schools, colleges etc. are also affiliated to Central Board of Education with various universities and also its own university set up under the State Legislature. The assessee claims that the assessee is a society constituted for charitable purposes as defined under s. 2(15) of the Act. 4. The assessee society filed return of income declaring NIL income on 06.11.2017. The return filed by the assessee was subjected to regular assessment under s. 143(3) of the Act wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed at INR 44,64,261/- on 31.12.2019. Subsequently, the assessment carried out under s. 143(3) was subjected to revisional proceedings under s. 263 of the Act. In consequence of the revisional order, the AO framed assessment order dated 30.03.2023 under s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act. The AO made certain additions by taking shelter of s. 13 and s. 11(1)(c) of the Act. The additions so made were challenged before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed a very detailed order ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 3 under s. 250 of the Act and reversed the action of the AO on many counts. The CIT(A) however also endorsed the action of the AO atleast partially on some other counts. 5. The Revenue is aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A). The assessee is also aggrieved by the part confirmation of the action of the AO by the CIT(A). Hence this appeal and cross-objection thereon. 6. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA No.143/Del/2024 read as under:- 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee as discussed below. 2. Whether for the amount of Rs.4,23,07,206/- (Addition on account of payment made to specified persons), the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by treating the above disallowance as ad-hoc and not permissible u/s 13(1)(c) of the IT Act, disregarding the very fact that the above disallowance was based on facts, sound logic and proper reasoning and not some disallowance of arbitrary nature as stated by CIT(A). Whether for the same amount Ld.CIT(A) was correct in taking a view that since no disallowance was made in the original order dated 31.12.2019, the same could not be done in any fresh assessment or reassessment proceeding. 3. Whether for the amount of Rs.1,23,58,000/- (Addition on account of professional charges paid to specified persons), the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by treating the above disallowance as ad-hoc and not permissible u/s 13(1)(c) of the IT Act, disregarding the very fact that the above disallowance was based on facts, sound logic and proper reasoning and not some disallowance of arbitrary nature as stated by CIT(A). Whether for the same amount Ld.CIT(A) was correct in taking a view that since no disallowance was made in the original order dated 31.12.2019, the same could not be done in any fresh assessment or reassessment proceeding. 4. Whether for the amount of Rs.5,31,06,000/- (Addition on account of payment made to concerns in which persons referred u/s 13(3) are substantially interested.), the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee to the extent of confirmation of disallowance only to the amount of Rs. 1,51,84,400/-by treating 50% disallowance as excessive and allowing a disallowance of only 20% premised on the basis that specified persons have paid taxes at MMR. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 4 Whether for the amount 2,82,90,000/- which was paid to Stratega Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. by the assessee for AY 2017-18, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in not treating the same as violation of section 13(1)(c) of IT Act i.e. payment made to specified person. 5. Whether for the amount of Rs.358,25,00,000/- (Addition on account of violation of section 11(1)(a) r.w.s. 11(1)(c)) the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the above addition by taking a misplaced view that since no addition was made in AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 on above issue therefore, no addition could be made for this AY too based on the principle of consistency, disregarding the fact that every assessment or reassessment is a fresh proceeding and principle of consistency does not summarily apply to an order/ addition which is based on substantiated facts and reasons. Whether for the above amount, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in taking a supporting view to his earlier stance, that since gross receipts as per I & E account was Rs. 1589,52,40,060/- and total expenditure including expenditure outside India was Rs. 1432,26,82,817/-, the expenditure incurred outside India was out of current year receipts and since the assessee had Suo-moto disallowed the difference of the two in computation itself, addition of the same by the AO would result in double addition and therefore the same needs to be deleted. 6. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in treating the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 44,74,00,000/- (Addition on account of Foreign remittance made abroad without any approval u/s 11(1)(c) from CBDT), a part of total remittance of Rs.358.25 Cr. and subsequently deleting the same on the basis that the disallowance of the same would result in double addition. 7. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in partly allowing the appeal of assessee for re-computing the interest u/s 234B of the IT Act.” 7. The grounds raised in cross-objection of assessee reads as under:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act giving effect to the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the PCIT based on which re-assessment has been made, is itself is bad in the eyes of law and on facts. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,51,84,400/- on account of payment made to entities in which specified ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 5 persons are substantially interested treating the same as excessive and unreasonable under section 13(3) r.w.s 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(2)(c) of the Act. (ii) That the above addition has been confirmed rejecting the submission and explanation given by the assessee to justify that the payments made by the assessee trust are neither excessive nor unreasonable and cannot be added invoking the provision of section 13(3) of the Act. (iii) That the above said addition has been confirmed arbitrarily by applying rate of 20% without there being any justification for the same. (iv) That the addition has been confirmed ignoring the detailed submission and explanation given by the assessee to justify that these payments have been made solely & exclusively for the activities of the assessee society & be allowed as application of income.” 8. We now advert to respective issues arising in the present appeals here under. 9. Ground No.1 of the Revenue appeal is general in nature. 10. Ground No.2 concerns disallowance of 50% of salaries paid to specified persons under s. 13(3) of the Act. 10.1. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit the details of specified persons to whom payments have been made or benefit has been given alongwith justification for the same. In response, the assessee submitted documents namely copy of ITRs of the recipients; detailed description of profile of persons; details of top faculties and deans working in different institutions; ledger account in respect of salary payments. 10.2. Detailed chart showing salary paid to persons specified was provided to the AO wherein it was submitted that persons are working as part of administrative and governing body of the assessee’s trust. They have been actively engaged in the leadership role for good governance. Salary of specified persons namely Shri Atul Chauhan includes salary from Dubai Branch of the assessee for INR 1,48,04,412/- which is already disallowed while computing the taxable income. Remaining amount of INR 1,44,00,000/- is not excessive and unreasonable considering the profile of ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 6 Shri Atul Chauhan. The assessee provided brief description of the profile of the specified persons to justify the payment of salary to be reasonable in the context of the accomplishment achieved by them. 10.3. The AO however disallowed 50% of the aggregate salary paid to following persons:- Sl.No. Particulars Salary Paid (In Rs.) 1. Atul Chauhan 2,92,04,412/- 2. Amita Chauhan 2,58,00,000/- 3. Aseem Chauhan 1,44,00,000/- 4. Abhay Chauhan 56,10,000/- 5. Divya Chauhan 36,00,000/- 6. Ajay Chauhan 36,00,000/- 7. Ajit Chauhan 24,00,000/- Total 8,46,14,412/- 10.4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that firstly, payment made to specified person duly co-relate with the astute profiles of the specified persons; secondly, the payments made to specified person have been duly offered by them in their return of income and hence overall tax position in Revenue is neutral; and thirdly, the AO made the said disallowance without pointing out fair market value of services and thus such adhoc disallowance are incapable of being made under s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. 10.5. On consideration of factual matrix, the CIT(A) observed that the enquiry on the issue of payments of salary to specified persons also made in original assessment by issuing show cause notice to this effect. The AO in the original proceedings however duly accepted the plea of the assessee towards salary payments and did not resort to any disallowance. The CIT(A) further noted that the salary payments made to Shri Atul Chauhan & Shri Aseem Chauhan by Dubai Branch has already been disallowed for the purposes of claiming exemption under s. 11 of the Act. The AO thus cannot take a different view on the basis of same facts. The CIT(A) also noted that in the absence of any evidence as to fair market value of the service, the Revenue ought not to sit in the arm chair of the assessee and ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 7 decide the payment structure of salary/reimbursement. The CIT(A) also took note of fact that salary received from the trust have been duly offered in their respective individual return and thus Revenue has not suffered any loss by so-called excessive payments. The CIT(A) thus adjudicated the issue of disallowance towards excessive payment of salary in favour of the assessee. 10.6. The process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- Ground No. 5 “The facts are similar to ground no. 8 of AY 2018-19. For ready reference the finding for AY 2018-19 is reproduced below: \"The following submissions of assessee are worth considering:- The assessee submitted that the above addition has been made ignoring the contention of the assessee that salary paid to Atul Chauhan and Aseem Chauhan by Dubai Branch has already been disallowed in computation of income and hence not claimed as application of income. The assessee submitted that the above said addition has been made by drawing the adverse inference from the fact that person specified u/s 13(3) are employed with other concerns and are not whole time employees of the assessee trust. The assessee submitted that the above said addition has been made arbitrarily by applying rate of 50% without there being any justification for the same. The assessee submitted that the above addition has been made by indulging in conjecture and surmises only on the basis of presumption and assumption. The assessee submitted that the addition has been made ignoring the detailed submission and explanation given by the assessee to justify that these payments have been made solely & exclusively for the activities of the assessee society & be allowed as application of income. The assessee submitted that the impugned disallowance of Rs. 5,43,16,824/- has been made by the Ld. AO on account of 50% of the aggregate salary payments of Rs. 10,86,33,648/- made by the assessee to specified persons u/s 13(3) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the said disallowance was proposed in the course of original assessment proceedings also vide show cause notice dated 20.04.2021 (Refer Pg 3112-3136 of PB). Vide the said notice, a clear basis of the proposed disallowance was indicated, viz. salary of Rs. 1,04,10,000/- paid to 6 out of 14 specified persons (viz. Anand Chauhan, Mriduła Chayhan, Madhulika Chauhan, Renu Chauhan, Abhinav Chauhan and Histro) were proposed to be disallowed, contending that details of their ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 8 educational qualification, designation, nature of work have not been submitted. The assessee submitted that the assessee filed a comprehensive reply dated 23.04.2021 (Refer Pg 3137- 3330 of PB), wherein complete details of all specified persons, including their educational qualification, experience, designation, name of the institute where they were employed, etc. were submitted. The assessee submitted that after consideration of the above details, the Ld. AO duly admitted the salary payments and hence no disallowance was made on account of the same vide order assessment dated 29.04.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act (Refer Pg 3331-3353 of PB) Accordingly, at the very outset, it is reiterated that when the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had only allowed to grant a personal hearing and again pass the assessment order as per law, then having accepted the salary payments, ad-hoc disallowance of 50% on account of the same in the impugned assessment order involves the contempt of order of Court, and hence, the said disallowances are liable to be deleted. From the above one thing is clear that no disallowance was made in the original order however in the subsequent order on the basis of same facts addition/disallowance of Rs. 5,43,16,824/ has been made by the Ld. AO on account of 50% of the aggregate salary payments of Rs. 10,86,33,648/-. Two issues emerges (i) whether the AO can take a different view on the basis of same facts, (ii) whether adhoc disallowance is permissible. In my view the AO should not take a different view on the basis of same facts. Secondly when the facts i.e. qualification, experience, quantum of salary paid etc was different in case of each person than the AO should have benchmarked salary in each case to find out the reasonableness of salary paid. The AO's action of adhoc disallowance of 50% was apparently not justified. It was submitted that it is not the case of the Ld. AO that salary of Rs. 10,86,33,648/- paid to specified persons has not been offered to tax in their individual computation of Income. In-fact, during the course of assessment proceedings, complete ITR forms and computation of income of each and every specified person was submitted before the Ld AO (Refer Pg 1319-1411 and Pg 1614-2192 of PB respectively) from which it is crystal clear that whatever salary has been paid by the assessee society has been offered to tax by such individuals in their return of income. Thus, this fact is also undisputed in the impugned appeal before your Honors. Assessee submitted that it is a settled proposition in law that ad-hoc disallowance of salary payments made to specified persons u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act cannot be made, in the absence of any evidence as to the fair value of such services, as the Revenue cannot sit in the armchair of assessee and decide the payment structure of salary/remuneration. In this regard reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs Krupanidhi Education Trust [2023] 150 faxmann.com 359, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against the order of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (Exemption) vs Krupanidhi ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 9 Education Trust (2022) 138 taxmann.com 339 (Karnataka), wherein it had held as under: \"9. The ground on which violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act has been alleged is based mainly on the salary/remuneration paid to Sri. Suresh Nagpal and Smt. Geetha Nagpal, the trustees of the assessee-trust, not in proportionate to service rendered by them but a device designed to divert the Income of the assessee. This allegation has no basis. It is well settled that the revenue cannot sit in the armchair of an assessee and decide the pattern of working, methodology to be adopted for whole administration of the educational trust including the payment structure of salary/remuneration to be paid to the professors/administrative staffs. In other words, the department cannot manage or control the managerial affairs of the educational trust. These aspects would not come within the purview of the authorities to decide the income tax liability merely on suspicion that the assessee is claiming huge expenditures to get the corresponding benefits of allowable deductions. No grounds are raised by the revenue relating to the deletion of the additions made by the CIT (Appeals) before the Tribunal, whereas reference was made to the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act only to draw support for denying exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the plea of the revenue as bereft of merit. The alleged breach of section 13(1)(c) of the Act based on these factors is baseless, wholly untenable. Thus, we answer the substantial question of law No. 1 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue\" Considering the facts (i) that no disallowance was made in the original order, (ii) that salary paid to Atul Chauhan and Aseem Chauhan by Dubai Branch has already been disallowed in computation of income, (iii) that the AO should not take a different view on the basis of same facts, (iv) that adhoc disallowance is normally not permissible u/s 13(1)(c), (v) that specified persons has offered their salaries at maximum marginal rate to tax in their individual computation of income, (vi) That the assessee had made detailed submission to justify the salaries however the same were dealt in summary manner by AO and disallowance was made; and considering the case laws on the issue, I am of the firm belief that no disallowance can be made in this case. It is worth mentioning that the specified persons have offered more income in their hands than what is claimed by assessee in its hand. This is because of the fact that salary paid to Atul Chauhan and Aseem Chauhan by Dubai Branch has already been disallowed in computation of income and not claimed as application of income whereas the same was offered to tax by these persons. (ITRs at page 63 to 70 of PB) The AO is therefore directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal is allowed.\" As the facts for the current year almost similar to AY 2018-19, following the decision for AY 2018-19, the AO is directed to delete the addition. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 10 This ground of appeal is allowed.” 10.7. On consideration of factual matrix and having regard to the rival submissions, we observe that CIT(A) has applied the principle of consistency and also disapproved the adhoc disallowance of salary payment to specified persons in the absence of any evidence on fair market value of services. The CIT(A) also took cognizance of the fact that respective recipients of salary have duly paid taxes on such salaries at maximum marginal rate of tax and thus no loss was caused to the Revenue. The CIT(A) further observed that the dominant profiles of recipients of salary adequately justify the bonafides of the salary payments. The CIT(A) thus reversed the action of the AO. The process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) cannot be set to be lacking in merits. The CIT(A) has examined the issue holistically while granting relief to the assessee. We see no error in the approach adopted by the CIT(A). We thus decline to interfere. 10.8. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is thus, dismissed. 11. Ground No.3 in the Revenue’s appeal concerns disallowance of INR 1,23,58,000/- made on account of professional charges being 50% of the total professional charges of INR 2,47,16,000/- paid to Ms. Pooja Chauhan. 11.1. With reference to the issue, the assessee submitted the details of audit work done and the qualification and experience of the internal auditor Ms.Pooja Chauhan to justify the professional charges. It was pointed out that Ms.Pooja Chauhan is a Chartered Accountant and is engaged in providing internal audit related services to the assessee since more than 18 years and to more than 35 institutions operating under the assessee trust situated in different geographical locations across the country. A copy of return of income of the recipients, ledger account etc. were placed. The AO however concluded that the payment of INR ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 11 2,47,16,000/- made to M/s. Pooja Chauhan & Associates is highly excessive and nothing but diversion of funds of the assessee trust to enrich the persons specified under s. 13(3) and thereby attracting the provision of s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. 11.2. The CIT(A) in first appeal observed that firstly, profit of M/s. Pooja Chauhan & Associates has been duly offered to tax and entire tax position is neutral; secondly, the AO has not brought anything on record to substantiate the fair market value of services rendered by the firm. The payments works out in the vicinity of INR 50,000/- per month per institution and considering the scale of work and complexibility involved, the payments made cannot be regarded as disproportionate. The CIT(A) thus observed that the Revenue cannot sit in the arm chair of the assessee to decide the working pattern, payment structure etc. and hence in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary, action of the AO cannot be sustained. The CIT(A) relied upon on the findings given in AY 2018-19 in similar facts and reversed the additions made on this score. 11.3. Having regard to the factual position emerging that the recipient Ms. Pooja Chauhan is adequately experienced and accomplished to carry out the complex work on such large scale spread though out India, the remuneration paid cannot be prima facie regarded as excessive per se. The recipient, in any case, has offered the receipts at a maximum marginal rate and therefore, the payments made are not detrimental to the interest of Revenue in any manner. We thus see no reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). 11.4. Ground No.3 of the Revenue’s appeal is thus dismissed. 12. Ground No.4 of the Revenue’s appeal concerns the additions of INR 5,31,06,000/- made on account of payments to concerns in which persons specified under s. 13(3) are substantially interested treating the same as ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 12 excessive payment. The AO disallowed 50% of the total payments made to such concerns. 12.1. On the issue, the assessee provided copy of ledger account; details of services provided by such concerns alongwith ITR & Audit Reports, copy of Agreements and order placed by trust with the specified entities. The AO observed that the assessee trust has made payments to three concerns namely Cross Border Placement Pvt.Ltd; Stratega Fiannce Co.Pvt.Ltd & Tegro India Pvt.Ltd. aggregating to INR 10,62,12,000/-. The AO considered the payments made towards placement services, finance related services etc. to be excessive having regard to the fair value. The AO accordingly disallowed 50% of the aggregate payments made by the assessee to such specified concerns on estimated basis. 12.2. Aggrieved by such estimated disallowances, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the action of the AO is not justified for several reasons viz these concerns are operational for more than 20 years; the services rendered by these concerns are sync of the profile and specialized executional capacity of such concerns; the copy of ITR and Audited Financial statement of these concerns show that such income has been offered to taxation by the different specified concerns with no loss to Revenue. 12.3. As regards justification of reasonableness of the payments, the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) as under:-  Cross Border Placement Pvt Ltd (Payment made Rs.5,35,03,000/-) a. Company was established in 30.07.1996 The company has provided the placement services to the assessee trust which includes identifying the appropriate human resource, all necessary placement related support services, conduct of interviews and related support facilities. Further the company is extensively engaged in post qualification placement related services to students of the various universities of the assessee trust. It handles all placement cell related operations, coordinates with participating MNC's and domestic companies, manages the database of students and concludes the placement programs of the universities successfully. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 13 b. The amount has been paid for the services provided to the trust being maintenance of human resource records. coordination and finalization of fresh recruitments during the year under consideration. During the previous year under consideration, more than 245 companies had participated in the placement program organized by the university, Top recruiters consisted of SAP LABS MPRO MAHINDRA HCL TECHNOLOGIES HYUNDAI, etc and various other public sector units in the placement drive.  Stratega Finance Company Pvt Ltd (Payment made Rs. 2.82.90.000/- a. It is submitted that the company was established way back in year 1986 on 07th of November. The company has handles and executed the support facilities in relation to obtaining the term loan facility, working capital credit and other financial support facility to the assessee trust during the year under consideration. Following services had been provided by the company to the assessee society during the year. b. Seeking various approvals and sanctions from governmental regulatory bodies. c. Furnishing of financials and liasioning thereof with regulatory bodies in educational sector i.e. State of UGC Authorities and Department of Education for schools d. Preparation of Budget for each institution. e. Preparation of project reports, projected data for submission with private and government authorities for issuance of funds and grants. f. The amount paid by the trust to the entity is towards financial and professional services for reconciliation & verification of accounts of various departments of Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and others, towards management of insurance policies and tax matters during the year under consideration.  Tegro India Pvt Ltd (Payment made Rs. 2,44,19,000) a. This company was established way back in year 1979 on 24th of April. The trust had obtained from the Company supervision services of buildings and other infrastructure of the various institutions and campuses of the trust along with project advisory services towards setting up of its campuses during the year under consideration. b. Further the company liaises with concerned authorities, whether Central Govt or State Govt for obtaining required approvals for setting up such projects, coordinate with Architects and Government authorities for approval of building plans, environmental approvals, pollution, fire safety and any other regulatory approvals that may be required for successful completion and commencement of the project. c. Also oversee and liaise with our contractors to ensure that the project follows the approvals given. Also, the company ensures the essential part of safety management i.e. preventive management of any mishappening by conducting regular meetings with concerned stakeholders. During the year a sum of Rs 2,44,19,000/-has been paid to the Company. A sum equivalent to 2% of the civil construction cost is paid to the company based on progress of the project each month due.” ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 14 12.4. The assessee thus contended before the CIT(A) that these specified concerns were established and are operational for more than 20 years. These companies have also been subjected to scrutiny assessment in the past years and no additions have been made whatsoever. The assessee also contended that no disallowances have been made in the past towards such payments and doctrine of consistency required to be given due weight. The assessee also pointed out that amount paid to such specified concerns are within the applicable limits of remuneration as laid down in the Companies Act, 2013 alongwith requisites approvals wherever required. 12.5. The CIT(A) found the payments made to Stratega Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd. to be justified and thus reversed the estimated disallowance. However the CIT(A) confirmed disallowance ot the extent of 20% of payments made to other two concerns on estimated basis. 12.6. The CIT(A) has dealt with the issue as under:- Ground No. 7 “The assessee submitted that the above addition has been made ignoring the submission and explanation given by the assessee to justify that the payments were made for the services availed by the assessee society in relation to the activities for the trust, which are neither excessive nor unreasonable and cannot be added invoking the provision of section 13(3) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the above said addition has been made arbitrarily by applying rate of 50% without there being any justification for the same. The assessee submitted that the above addition has been made by indulging in conjecture and surmises only on the basis of presumption and assumption. The assessee submitted that the addition has been made ignoring the detailed submission and explanation given by the assessee to justify that these payments have been made solely & exclusively for the activities of the assessee society & be allowed as application of income. The payments made to 3 concerns were partly disallowed by the AO. I have gone through the submissions of assessee and findings of AO. To decide the issue I have gone through the findings and submissions in each case. My finding in each case is as under: ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 15 1) Cross Border Placements Pvt. Ltd.- Rs. 5,35,03,000/- (inclusive of Service Tax and GST) The AO had found that the said entity has paid salary and remuneration of Rs. 3.79 crores, out of which salary payments to specified persons was Rs. 2,69,30,000/-. Payment Rs. 2,69,30,000/- was made to specified persons out of total employee benefit expenses of Rs. 3,79,00,000/- Prima facie, the same appears to be excessive. However considering the fact that most of the specified persons have paid taxes at maximum marginal rate, I am of the opinion that a disallowance of 20% of total payment would meet the end of justice. Addition of Rs. 1,07,00,600 is confirmed; the AO is therefore directed to delete the balance addition w.r.t. this entity. (ii) Stratega Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.- Rs. 2,82,90,000/- (inclusive of Service Tax and GST) The AO has stated that the major expense of the company is salary and incentives of Rs. 1,26,67,283/-, out of which 50% was paid to specified persons, and a profit of Rs. 1,08,22,325/- has been derived, le. about 44%. In this connection, it is submitted that the company was established way back in year 1986 on 07th of November. The company has handled and executed the support facilities in relation to obtaining the term loan facility, working capital credit and other financial support facility to the assessee trust during the year under consideration. Following services had been provided by the company to the assessee society during the year (a) Seeking various approvals and sanctions from governmental regulatory bodies (b) Furnishing of financials and liasioning thereof with regulatory bodies in educational sector i.e. State UGC Authorities and Department of Education for schools. (c) Preparation of Budget for each institution (d) Preparation of project reports, projected data for submission with private and government authorities for issuance of funds and grants. The amount paid by the trust to the entity is towards financial and professional services for reconciliation & verification of accounts of various departments of Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and others, towards management of insurance policies and tax matters during the year under consideration. The company is very old and apparently handling the affairs of assessee for a very long time. The payment to specified persons is also not significant. The AO is therefore directed to delete the addition w.r.t. this entity. (vi) Tegro India Pvt. Ltd.- Rs. 2,44,19,000/- (inclusive of Service Tax and GST) The AO has stated that the company has paid Rs. 2,19,60,000/- as salaries to specified persons out of total receipt of Rs.2,44,19,000/-. Payment Rs. 2,19,60,000/- was made to specified persons out of total receipt of Rs. 2,44,19,000/-Prima facie, the same appears to be excessive. However considering the fact that most of the specifies persons have paid taxes at maximum marginal rate, I am of the opinion that a disallowance of 20% of total payment would meet the end of justice. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 16 Addition of Rs. 44,83,800/- is confirmed; the AO is therefore directed to delete the balance addition w.r.t. this entity. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 12.7. Before the Tribunal, the assessee vehemently reiterated the submissions made before the CIT((A) and referred to the documentary evidences to contend that the estimations made by the AO being 50% of the expenses incurred was without any edifice. The CIT(A) has restricted the additions to the extent of 20% in respect of payments made to Cross Border Placement Pvt.Ltd. and Tegro India Pvt.Ltd. The additions to the extent of 20% of the payments sustained in respect of these two concerns are wholly unjustified. For estimating disallowance at 20% of payments, the fair market value of services has not been brought on record to justify as to how the payment made are excessive. The assessee provided the comparative chart showing payments to these concerns year after year as under:- Comparative chart showing payments made to the concerns S.No. Name of concerns AY 2015-16 (FY 2014-15) AY 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) AY 2017-18 (FY 2016-17) AY 2018-19 (FY 2017-18) 1. Cross Border Placement Pvt.Ltd. 4,48,28,269 5,31,24,045 5,35,03,000 6,55,15,228 2. Stratega Fiannce Co.Pvt.Ltd. 1,82,83,200 2,71,77,520 2,82,90,000 3,02,59,500 3. Tegro India Pvt.Ltd. 3,89,20,740 4,54,12,040 2,44,19,000 4,47,92,240 12.8. The assessee thus contends that similar payments have been made in earlier years as well as in the succeeding years which has not been disturbed and therefore principle of consistency should be applied. The assessee vociferously submitted that considering the mammoth size of the assessee trust, the expenses incurred to achieve the objects of the assessee trust cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. The payments made are more than reasonable, having regard to the volume of work and nature of services. 13. The material facts that emerges are; ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 17 (a) receipts from the assessee by these concerns have been duly offered to tax and therefore overall position is tax neutral; (b) the AO or the CIT(A) has brought nothing on record to substantiate fair market value of services rendered by these concerns while resorting to estimations. (c) the assessee has provided the particulars on nature of services provided by each concerns; (d) doctrine of principle of consistency needs to be given due weight; (e) the concerns are established for more than 20 years and are competent and accomplished to deliver services to such big institution; (f) the amounts paid to the Directors by the concerns are within permissible limits provided under the Companies Act, 2013; and (g) payments made to these concerns contribute only 15% of the total payments made by the society to these concerns. 14. In the light of these facts, there appears to be ample justification in the plea of the assessee. The CIT(A) has confirmed 20% of the payments made to Cross Border Placement Pvt.Ltd. & Tegro India Pvt.Ltd. without any credible material. The action of the AO as well as the CIT(A) in resorting to estimations are mere ipse dixit. As noted, the specified persons have paid taxes at maximum marginal rate and thus the position is tax neutral. No additions towards such payments were made in the preceding AYs. Thus in totality, the unsupported action of the lower authorities deserves to be set aside. 15. Ground No.4 of the Revenue’s appeal is thus dismissed wherein Ground No.4 of the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed. 16. Ground No.5 concerns addition of INR 358,25,00,000/- towards purported violation of s. 11(1)(a) r.w.s 11(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 18 16.1. The assessee pointed out that the society had set up a branch in Dubai after obtaining all the necessary permissions and approvals from the concerned authorities including RBI. A separate balance sheet in the name of ‘Dubai Consolidated Balance Sheet’ was prepared to account for the operations of the universities/schools etc. in Dubai. In the ‘Dubai Consolidated Balance Sheet’, the sum payable to Indian branches was shown as liability under the head ‘Contributions from schools/society/HO’. As on 31.03.2016, such liabilities stood at INR 760.02 crore while as on 31.03.2017, such liabilities stood at INR 1118.28 crore. The difference of the sum of INR 358.25 crore were added by the AO towards sum remitted to Dubai Branch. Therefore, essentially funds transferred to Dubai by the society during AY 2016-17 was taken to be difference of these two figures i.e. INR 358.25 crore. In the assessment proceedings, the source of investment made abroad was enquired. 16.2. In respect of funds remitted to Dubai, the assessee furnished the following documents to substantiate its claim that funds were remitted out of loan funds and the same have been added back in the computation of income and no exemption have been claimed under s.11 in respect of such remittances: * “Copy of RBI approval for acquisition and pledge of immoveable property by overseas overseas branch office of RBEF at UAE (Refer Pg 865 of PB) * Copy of letter from Axis Bank sanctioning the term loan facility (Refer Pg 866-879 of PB) * Copy of letter from Union Bank of India sanctioning the credit facility (Refer Pg 880-889 of PB) * Copy of letter with regards to start off-campus centre(s) (Refer Pg 890 of PB) * Copy of NOC issued by the Ministry of External Affairs for setting up off campus in Dubai (Refer Pg 895 of PB).” 16.3. The AO however did find the explanation of the assessee to be satisfactory and made the entire addition of INR 358.28 crore being the difference between opening and closing balance of contribution under the ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 19 head ‘schools/society/HO’ appearing in the ‘Dubai Consolidated Balance Sheet’. 16.4. The CIT(A), in the first appeal, deleted the additions made by the AO applying the principle of consistency and having regard to the fact that no exemption has been claimed under s. 11 qua towards such remittance. The relevant paragraphs dealing with the issue is reproduced here under:- Ground No. 8 “The facts are similar to ground no.12 & 13 of AY 2018-19. For ready reference the finding for AY 2018-19 is reproduced below:- \"It was submitted that the final addition of Rs. 139,99,56,313/- has been made by the Ld. AO on account of remittance made by the assessee society to RBEF Dubai during the year under consideration. The assessee submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the foreign investments were duly admitted by the Ld. AO, and hence no disallowance was made on account of the same vide order assessment dated 29.04.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act (Refer Pg 3331- 3353 of PB). Accordingly, at the very outset, it is reiterated that when the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had only allowed to grant a personal hearing and again pass the assessment order as per law, then having accepted such payments, disallowance on account of the same in the impugned assessment order involves the contempt of order of Court, and hence, the said disallowance is liable to be deleted. The principles of consistency It was seen that in earlier year (AY 2014-15, AY 2015-16)) also assessee has incurred similar expenditure. In earlier years the assessee disallowed the same in computation of income itself however no separate addition was made by AO In these years. As the appeals for these years are also before me the fact are verifiable. For ready reference the computation for these years is reproduced below:- Name: RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION Address: E-27, Defence Colony New Delhi Status: AOP (TRUST) Financial Year: 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 P. A. No.: AAATR73140 Statement of Assessable Income Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Gross Receipt as per income & Expenditure A/c 10,15,07,25,584 Less: Expenditure Incurred towards the object of the Trust 6,77,61,13,695 Less: Depreciation 1,17,94,20,118 Less: Provision for Gratuity 9,15,81,012 Add: Gratuity Paid 52,08,490 Add: Capital Expenditure 3,25,33,80,548 ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 20 10,76,37,01,603 Less: Expenditure Incurred outside India has not been considered while 69,58,57,552 calculating application of Income U/s 11(1) 10,06,78,44,050 Net Surplus/(Deficit) 8,28,81,533 Less: 15% of Gross receipts extent to available surplus 8,28,81,533 Net Taxable Income NIL Tax Due NIL Less: Taxes Paid (TDS) 5,99,31,362 Refund Due 5,99,31,362 Name: RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION Address: E-27, Defence Colony New Delhi Status: AOP (TRUST) Financial Year: 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 P. A. No.: AAATR7314Q Statement of Assessable Income Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Gross Receipt as par income & Expenditure A/c 11,66,50,49,236 Less: Expenditure Incurred towards the object of the Trust 9,58,53,27,523 Less: Depreciation 1,35,85,43,684 Less: Provision for Gratuity 7,35,55,727 Add: Gratuity Paid 1,53,36,710 Add: Capital Expenditure 3,89,14,32,055 12,06,99,96,877 Less: Expenditure incurred outside India has not been considered while 1,49,21,28,632 calculating application of income u/s 11(1) 10,57,78,68,244 Net Surplus/(Deficit) 1,08,71,80,992 Less: 15% of Gross receipts extent to available surplus 1,08,71,80,992 Net Taxable Income NIL Tax Due NIL Less: Taxes Paid (TDS) 3,90,58,666 Refund Due 3,90,58,666 It is settled principle in law that while res-judicata does not, strictly speaking, apply to Income-tax proceedings, the Courte (Including the Hon'ble apex Court) have repeatedly emphasized that where the fundamental facts remained the same in different assessment years, it is not open for the Revenue to take one view in certain years and another view in other years. When on identical facts no addition was made in AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 then, it was not open for the AD to take one view in those years and another view in this year. Therefore the addition deserves to be deleted on the principles of consistency itself. On merits The AO held that the money set aside in earlier year was used for these expenses and added the same u/s 11(1)(a). ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 21 For ready reference the computation of income for current year is reproduced below: Name: RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION Address: E-27, Defence Colony New Delhi Status: AOP (TRUST) Financial Year: 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 Assessment Your: 2018-2019 P. A. No.: AAATR7314Q Statement of Assessable Income Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Gross Receipt as per Income & Expenditure A/c 18,30,30,16,422 Less: Expenditure Incurred towards the object of the Trust 16,77,61,23,568 Less: Depreciation 2,43,15,66,820 Provision for Gratuity 10,08,20,446 Add: Gratuity Paid 2,10,82,830 Add: Capital Expenditure 4,25,15,03,192 18,51,83,22,325 Less: Expenditure Incurred outside India has not been considered while 2,47,40,93,045 calculating application of Income U/ 11(1) 16,04,42,20,280 Net Surplus/(Deficit) 2,25,87,87,141 Less: 15% of Gross receipts extent to available surplus 2,25,87,87,141 Net Taxable Income Tax Due NIL Less: Taxes Paid TDS, TCS & Advance Tax 3,15,70,138 Refund Due 3,15,70,138 It shows that Gross Receipt as per Income & Expenditure A/c was Rs. 18,30,30,16,422/- and total expenditure including expenditure incurred outside India was Rs. 16,77,81,23,568/-. As the Gross Receipt (as per Income & Expenditure A/c) of Rs. 18,30,30,16,422 was more than total expenditure (including expenditure incurred outside India) of Rs. 16,77,81,23,568/-, it can be, presumed that the expenditure Incurred outside India was out of current years receipts. Therefore the same has to be disallowed u/s 11(1)(c) as assessee has not obtained permission under proviso to sec 11(1)(c). As the assessee has suo-moto disallowed the same (Rs.2,47,40,93,045/-) in the computation Itself, addition of same by AO would result in double addition. The AO is therefore directed to delete this addition. This ground of appeal is allowed.\" ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 22 In the present year On merits The AO held that the money set aside in earlier year was used for these expenses and added the same u/s 11(1)(a). For ready reference the computation of income for current year is reproduced below: Name: RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION Address: B-27. Defence Colony New Delhi Status: AOP (TRUST) Financial Year: 01.04.2016 10 31.03.2017 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 P. A. No.: AAATR7314Q Statement of Assessable Income Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Gross Receipt as par Income & Expenditure A/c 15,89,52,40,050 Less: Expenditure Incurred towards the object of the Trust 14,32,26,82,817 Less: Depreciation 2,07,12,08,789 Provision for Gratuity 12,62,10,122 Add: Gratuity Paid 2,21,64,793 Add: Capital Expenditure 9,67,84,61,632 22,02,58,90,331 Less: Expenditure incurred outside India has not been considered while 8,23,95,04,546 calculating application of income U/s 11(1) 13,78,63,85,785 Net Surplus/(Deficit) 2,10,88,54,275 Less: 15% of Gross receipts extent to available surplus 2,10,88,54,275 Net Taxable Income NIL Tax Due NIL Less: Taxes Paid (TDS) 3,53,59,220 Refund Due 3,53,59,220 It shows that Gross Receipt as per Income & Expenditure A/c was Rs. 15,89,52,40,060/-and total expenditure including expenditure Incurred outside India was Rs. 14,32,26,82,617/-. As the Gross Receipt (as per Income & Expenditure A/c) of Rs. 15,89,52,40,060/-was more than total expenditure (Including expenditure incurred outside India) of Rs. 14,32,26,82,817/-, It can be presumed that the expenditure Incurred outside India was out of current years receipts. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 23 Therefore the same has to be disallowed u/s 11(1)(c) as assessee has not obtained permission under proviso to sec 11(1)(c). As the assesses has suo-moto disallowed the same (Rs.8,23,95,04,546/-) in the computation itself addition of same by AO would result in double addition. Considering the above and the fact that the facts are similar to AY 2018-19, the AO is directed to delete this addition. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 16.5. The assessee in the instant case has explained the source of investment, source of transfer of money to its Dubai Branch to be out of term loan and credit facilities. Necessary RBI approval in this regard has been placed on record together with NOC issued by the Ministry of External Affairs for setting up campus in Dubai. The assessee has categorically submitted that no benefit has been obtained under s. 11 in relation to such foreign remittances. The assessee has prepared the computation of income and has claimed exemption only in regard to the income applied for charitable purposes in India. No expenditure incurred abroad has been claimed as applied in India. 16.6. Under these facts, the nuanced analysis by the CIT(A) in AYs 2018- 19 and 2017-18 cannot be faulted with. No cogent reasons has been brought on record by the Revenue to depart from the view expressed by the CIT(A). 16.7. We thus decline to interfere. Ground No.5 of the Revenue’s appeal is thus dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No.143/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18] is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee in C.O.No.55/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18] is allowed. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 24 ITA No.144/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2018-19] (Revenue’s appeal) C.O.56/Del/2024 [Assessment Year :2018-19] (Assessee’s Cross-Objection) 18. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:- 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee as discussed below. 2. Whether, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional ground taken by the assessee. 3. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in not addressing the basic issue raised by the AO in its order regarding the denial of exemption w/s 11/12 arising out of a violation of section 13(1)(c) of the IT Act. 4. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in drawing the wrong inference that the AO in its order u/s 154 dated 31.03.2023 had granted to the assessee the exemption w/s 11 except the amount covered u/s 13(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5. Whether, for the amount of Rs.225,87,87,142/- (Non grant of 15% benefit u/s 11(1)(a) of the IT Act), the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee stating that since for AY 2017-18 exemption was allowed u/s 11(1)(a) of the IT Act, therefore the same should be allowed for AY 2018-19 based on the principle of consistency, disregarding the fact that every assessment or reassessment is a fresh proceeding and principle of consistency does not summarily apply to an order/ addition which is based on substantiated facts and reasons. 6. Whether for the amount of Rs.365,14,43,409/- (Addition on account of capital expenditure claimed in, ITR less depreciation), Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee stating that since for AY 2017-18 exemption was allowed u/s 11(1)(a) of the IT Act, therefore, the same should be allowed for AY 2018-19 based on the principle of consistency, disregarding the fact that every assessment or reassessment is a fresh proceeding and principle of consistency does not summarily apply to an order addition which is based on substantiated facts and reasons. 7. Whether for the amount of Rs 5,43,16,824/- (Addition on account of payment made to specified persons), the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by treating the above disallowance as ad-hos and not permissible u/s 13(1)(c) of the IT Act, disregarding the very fact that the above disallowance was based on facts, sound logic and proper reasoning and not some disallowance of arbitrary nature as stated by CIT(A). Whether for the same amount Ld.CIT(A) was correct in taking a view that since no disallowance was made in the original order dated 29.04.2021, the same could not be done in any fresh assessment or reassessment proceeding disregarding the fact that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had given liberty to revenue to conduct its proceedings without any preconditions. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 25 8. Whether for the amount of Rs. 1,29,53,000/- (Addition on account of professional charges paid to specified persons), the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by treating the above disallowance as ad-hoc and not permissible u/s 13(1)(c) of the IT Act, disregarding the very fact that the above disallowance was based on facts, sound logic and proper reasoning and not some disallowance of arbitrary nature as stated by CIT(A). Whether for the same amount Ld.CIT(A) was correct in taking a view that since no disallowance was made in the original order dated 29.04.2021, the same could not be done in any fresh assessment or reassessment proceeding disregarding the fact that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had given liberty to revenue to conduct its proceedings without any preconditions. 9. Whether for the amount of Rs.43,10,17,322/- (Addition on account of payment made to concerns in which persons referred u/s 13(3) are substantially interested.), the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee to the extent of confirmation of disallowance only to the amount of Rs.3,38,06,546/-by treating the above disallowance as ad. hoc and not permissible u/s 13(1)(c) of the IT Act, disregarding the very fact that the above disallowance was based on facts, sound logic and proper reasoning and not some disallowance of arbitrary nature as stated by CIT(A). Whether for the same amount Ld.CIT(A) was correct in taking a view that since no disallowance was made in the original order dated 29.04.2021, the same could not be done in any fresh assessment or reassessment proceeding disregarding the fact that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had given liberty to revenue to conduct its proceedings without any preconditions. 10. Whether for the amount of Rs.139,99,56,313/- (Addition on account of violation of section 11(1)(a) r.w.s. 11(1)(c)) the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the above addition by taking a misplaced view that since no addition was made in AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 on above issue therefore, no addition could be made for this AY too based on the principle of consistency, disregarding the fact that every assessment or reassessment is a fresh proceeding and principle of consistency does not summarily apply to an order/ addition which is based on substantiated facts and reasons. Whether for the above amount, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in taking a supporting view to his earlier stance, that since gross receipts as per I & E account was Rs. 1830,30,16,422/- and total expenditure including expenditure outside India was Rs.1677,81,23,568/-, the expenditure incurred outside India was out of current year receipts and since the assessee had Suo-moto disallowed the difference of the two in computation itself, addition of the same by the AO would result in double addition and therefore the same needs to be deleted. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 26 11. Whether for the amount of Rs. 2,87,47,526/- (Addition on account of Foreign remittance made abroad without any approval u/s 11(1)(c) from CBDT), Ld.CIT(A) was justified in first confirming the addition regarding payments made to 'Herrick Feinstein LLP' and 'Jones Lang Americans, INC' by holding the same as violation u/s 11(1)(c) of the IT Act but subsequently deleting the above addition holding that since no addition was made in AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 on the above issue, the same is in violation of principle of consistency if added in AY 2018-19. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in taking a view that payments made to Facebook Ireland Limited are advertisement charges used for enrolling the foreign students with Amity India and not in any foreign country therefore the addition with respect to payment to above entity should be deleted. 12. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in partly allowing the appeal of assessee for recomputing the interest u/s 234B and 234D.” 19. The assessee, as per its cross-objection has also contested the additions to the extent of INR 3,38,06,546/- confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of payments made to entities in which specified persons are substantially interested treating the same as excessive and unreasonable under s. 13(3) r.w.s 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(2)(c) of the Act. As per the cross- objection, the CIT(A) has partly confirmed the action of the AO by scaling down the disallowance from 50% to 20% without assigning any justification. 20. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the Revenue’s appeal are general in nature and thus do not call for any adjudication. 21. As per Ground Nos.3 & 4 of the Revenue’s appeal, the Revenue contends that CIT(A) was not justified in not addressing the basic issue raised by the AO regarding denial of exemption under s. 11/12 arising out of violation of s.13(1)(c) of the Act and drawing wrong inference that AO has granted exemption under s. 11 except the amount covered under s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. In these grounds, the Revenue has contested the exemption granted to the assessee under s. 11(1) of the Act. It is being contended that AO has not allowed exemption and as such, the CIT(A) was ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 27 not justified in drawing inference that the AO has granted exemption to the assessee under s. 11(1) of the Act. 21.1. In support of the order of the CIT(A), the Ld. Counsel pointed out that : “As regard to Ground No. 3, this issue of denial of exemption has been deliberated upon by the CIT(A) at CIT(A) order Page 98 to 103 of its order. On Page 98, the CIT(A) has deliberated upon ground no 2.4 and 6 raised originally in the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order where the total receipts were taxed. The CIT(A) has considered the rectification order passed under section 154 by the assessing officer. The CIT(A) has referred to para 5.7 at Page 1803 of PB and para 8 at Page 1805 of PB rectification order passed by the assessing officer where the assessing officer has categorically held that in case of Violation of section 13(1)(c), the exemption has to be denied only to the extent of the payment made to specified persons Accordingly, the contention of the Revenue in ground no. 3 that CIT(A) has not addressed the issue of denial of exemption is incorrect. As regards ground no. 4, the contention of the Revenue whether CIT(A) was justified in drawing wrong inferences on the basis of the rectification order that exemption has been granted to the assessee under section 11 except the amount covered under section 13(1)(c) of the Act. It is submitted that the assessing officer in Para 8 (Page 1805) of the rectification order dated 31.03.2023, has categorically recorded his findings as under- 8. The view as discussed in para 6 & 7 above has attained finality in The CIT v. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 44 taxmann.com 275 (Karnataka) (SLP dismissed CIT v. Fr. Mullers Charitable institutions [2014] 51 taxmann.com 378/227 Taxman 369 (SC)). In addition to this, a case of the Jurisdictional High court in DIT(E) Vs Agrim Charan Foundation [2002] 253 ITR 593, maintains the same view The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Dethi has relied its judgment on the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case DIT (Exemption) v Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust, [2001] 114 Taxman 19 (Bombay). The Hon'ble HC of Mumbai has clearly held that reading of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act makes it clear that it is only the income from such investment or deposit which has been made in violation of Section 11(5) of the Act that is liable to be taxed and that violation under Section 13(1)(d) does not tantamount to the denial of exemption under Section 11 on the total income of the assesses Further, there are other case laws which favors the stand of the assessee in the case of The Commissioner of income Tax vs Audyogik Shikshan Mandal on 18 December 2018(Mumbai) and CIT v. Working Women's Forum (2015) 53 taxmann.com 85 (Mad.) [SLP dismissed in DIT v Working Women's Forum (2015) 63 laxmann.com 324/235 Taxman 516 (SC)] support the view that the entire income shall not attract the Maximum ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 28 Marginal rate of tax. The Maximum Marginal Rate shall apply only to that part of the income which has violated Section 13(1)(c) and section 13(1)(d). On going through the above, it may be important to point out that assessing officer after giving references to the above judgments, has held that it is only the income which is subject matter of violation, the exemption has to be denied to that extent and it does not tantamount to denial of the exemption under section 11 of the total income of the assessee. Further, in Para 10 of (PB Page 1805) the assessing officer has categorically stated that only income in respect of violation under section 13(1)(c)/13(1)(b) is to be taxed Maximum Margin Rate (MMR). Accordingly, it is submitted that CIT(A) has correctly drawn the inferences that assessing officer has granted exemption under section 11 except the amount covered under section 13(1)(c) which have been taxed by the AO at the maximum marginal rate. In view of the above fact, it is submitted that the contentions raised by revenue in Ground No.3 and Ground No.4 are incorrect and need to be dismissed.” 21.2. As contended, the AO himself has held that exemption under s. 11 is to be restricted on that part of income which been applied for charitable purposes in accordance with law. The observations of the CIT(A) are sync with the position of law and does not call for any inference. 22. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 of the Revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 23. As per Ground No.5, the Revenue has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee in respect of amount retained to the extent of 15% of the total income to be applied for charitable purposes in terms of provision of s. 11(1)(a) of the Act. 23.1. As per provision of s.11(1)(a) of the Act, the charitable trust or society is required to apply to the extent of 85% of its total income for charitable purpose and exemption towards balance amount of 15% of the gross income is unfettered and not subject to any further condition and thus liable to be allowed to the assessee. The CIT(A) taking note of the position of law and having regard to the fact that the AO himself has accepted such position and carried out appropriate rectification in this regard, reversed the additions. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 29 23.2. The relevant operative para of the order of the CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:- Ground No.17:- Apparently the AO accepted the assessee’s contention u/s 154, observing as under:- \"9. Based on the above discussion, it is clear that the contention of the assessee submitted vide applications dated 22/07/2022, 16/11/2022 and 20/03/2023 is correct. There is a mistake that is apparent from records as per CBDT Circular No. 68 dated 17-11-1971.\" The AO in Para 5.7 and 8 of order u/s 154 reproduced earlier held that exemption us 11 would be available to assessee except the amount covered u/s 13(1)(c). However while computing the income deduction u/s 11(1)(a) was not given. On identical facts the AO vide order dated 30.3.2023 for AY 2017-18 allowed the exemption u/s 11(1)(a). The computation for AY 2017-18 is reproduced for ready- reference: \"Scrutiny assessment of the assessee, for the Assessment Year under consideration, is proposed to be completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act as under. Sl.No. Description Amount (in INR) 1. Income as per Return of Income filed u/s 139(1) 0 2. Variation 1: 50% of the salary of Rs. 8,46,14,412/- paid to the persons referred to under sec 13(3) found as unreasonable and excessive, attracting Sec 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(2)(c) Rs 4,23,07,206/- 3. Variation 2: 50% of the excessive professional charges paid to Smt. Pooja Chauhan Rs. 1,23,58,000/ 4. Variation 3: 50% of the payments made to concerns in which persons referred to u/s. 13(3) are substantially interested Rs. 5,31,06,000/- 5. Variation 4: The entire amount of investment made abroad without any approval u/s. 11(1)(c) from CBDT Rs.3,58,25,00,000/- 6. Variation 5: The amount of foreign remittance made abroad without any approval u/s. 11(1)(c) from CBDT Rs. 44,74,00,000/- 7. Total income determined as per the above proposal Rs.4,13,76,71,206/- Penalty u/s 270A is also proposed to be initiated for under reporting of income of for A. Y.2017-18. Demand notice u/s 156 and computation sheet is to be initiated accordingly”. I have gone through the submission of assessee, order u/s 154 and order for AY 2017-18. It is settled principle in law that while res judicata does not, strictly speaking, apply to income-tax proceedings, the Courts (including the Hon'ble apex Court) have repeatedly emphasized that where the fundamental facts remained the same in ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 30 different assessment years, it is not open for the Revenue to take one view in certain years and another view in other years. (the principles of consistency). Therefore, considering the facts of case, the case law sited by assessee and accepted by AO in order u/s 154 and following the principles of consistency, the AO is directed to allow exemption of 15% u/s 11(1)(a) of the IT act. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 23.3. The action of CIT(A) allowing exemption of 15% of gross income under s. 11(1)(a) of the Act is prima facie in accordance with law. Hence no interference is called for. 23.4. Ground No.5 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 24. Ground No.6 concerns additions of INR 3,65,14,43,409/- made by the AO in re-computation done by him in the rectification order passed under s. 154 of the Act. The AO has added this amount considering that such amount is a capital expenditure and hence same cannot be allowed while computing the income. 24.1. Before the AO as well the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee society had incurred capital expenditure of aforesaid amount. It was submitted before the AO that the assessee society had incurred capital expenditure for the year under consideration for purchase of various assets like buildings, Air Conditioners, computers, furniture, electrical equipments and so on. The AO issued notice under s. 142(1) of the Act and called for the details of the additions. The AO however in a separate order passed under s. 154 of the Act, made the impugned additions on the ground that such expenditure being capital expenditure, cannot be allowed while computing the income. 24.2. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that firstly, as per the rectification order under s. 154 himself has observed that exempt available to the assessee except the amount covered under s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. However while framing the computation of income disallowed the aforesaid amount. The CIT(A) also ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 31 noted that in identical facts, exemption towards capital expenditure has been allowed under s. 11(1)(a) of the Act in AY 2017-18. The relevant para dealing with the issue by the CIT(A) is reproduced here under:- Ground No.18: “The facts are similar to ground no.17, once it is held that on rest of the income assessee would be eligible for exemption u/s11, it has to be taken to a logical conclusion. Secondly, on identical facts no disallowance of capital expenditure was made by the AO (vide order dated 30.3.2023) in AY 2017-18. The computation for AY 2017-18 was already reproduced in ground no.17. Therefore, considering the facts of case, the case law sited by assessee and accepted by AO in order u/s 154 and following the principles of consistency, the AO is directed to delete the addition of capital expenditure of Rs. 3,65,14,43,409/-. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 24.3. Before the Tribunal, the Ld. Counsel supported the action of the CIT(A) and contended that exemption under s.11(1)(a) is available to the extent, it is applied for charitable purpose irrespective of the fact whether it is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure unlike other assessments not covered by s.11,12 etc. In the computation of income, the assessee itself has excluded the capital expenditure incurred and applied outside India. Therefore, the AO has committed mistake in making rectification on such count. The Ld. Counsel also pointed out that the computation of income in respect of a charitable trust registered under s. 12A of the Act has to be made in accordance with the provisions of s. 11(1)(a) of the Act. As per s.11(1)(a) of the Act, income applied for charitable purpose which may include capital expenditure is to be considered as exempt. The AO thus has committed mistake in the rectification order while making this additions (net of depreciation) for the reason that such expenditure is a capital expenditure. The CIT(A) has corrected the error by deleting the same. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 32 24.4. For the purposes of computation of income in respect of charitable trust registered under s.12A, the capital expenditure is allowable to be treated as applied for charitable purpose. The CIT(A) thus has taken a correct view in favour of the assessee in accordance with law. Hence we decline to interfere with the findings of CIT(A). 24.5. Ground No.6 of the Revenue’s appeal is thus dismissed. 25. Ground No.7 concerns estimated additions for an amount of INR 5,43,16,824/- out of salary payments to persons specified under s.13(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) reversed the disallowance made by the AO essentially on the ground that additions made are adhoc and not permissible under 13(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) also observed that relevant documentary evidences have been filed to support the claim that payments made are commensurate with educational qualification, rich experience and skills needed for achieving aim and objects of the society. 25.1. The issue raised is identical to Ground No.2 of the appeal of the Revenue concerning AY 2017-18. The issue has been discussed in length in para 10 (supra). In consonance with the findings in AY 2017-18, the additions made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). We do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). 25.2. Ground No.7 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 26. Ground No.8 concerns additions of INR 1,29,53,000/- on account of professional charges paid to specified persons. The CIT(A) observed that relevant documentary evidences have been filed to support the bonafides of the payments and corresponding adequacy of services. 26.1. Identical issue has cropped up in AY 2017-18 as well as and discussed in length in para 11(supra). The additions made on this score thus has been rightly reversed by the CIT(A). 26.2. Ground No.8 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 33 27. Ground No.9 concerns additions on account of payments made to concerns in which persons referred under s. 13(3) are substantially interested. 27.1. The AO in the instant case observed that the assessee has made certain payments to following specified persons covered under s. 13(3) of the Act:- Name Nature of payments Amount(Rs.) Amity Energy & Environment Consultants Pvt.Ltd. Consultancy in respect of conservation of energy 66,83,250 Cross Border Legal Systems Pvt.Ltd. Legal Services 4,66,21,000 Cross Border Placements Pvt.Ltd. Placement Services 6,55,15,228 AKC Data Systems (India) Pvt.ltd. Maintenance, Development & Leasing Charges 11,15,33,908 Stratega Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd. Finance Related Services 3,02,59,500 Tegro India Pvt.Ltd. Project Advisory Services 4,47,92,240 Amity Education Services Pvt.Ltd. Professional & Consultancy Services 27,36,77,536 First Grade Force Pvt.Ltd. Security services 7,91,45,536 Amity University Press Printing of books/note books 98,49,363 Univo Edtech Pvt.Ltd. Skill Development services 12,42,40,489 Cyborg Cyber Forensics & Information Security Pvt.Ltd. Information security services 49,03,653 Amity Capital Venture Pvt.Ltd. Investment banking and venture capital services 19,90,000 Education services Organization Sale of books, stationary & housekeeping material 12,29,81,633 Amity Media LLC, Dubai Commission/marketing services 3,13,00,031 ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 34 Amity Education Services LLC, Dubai Legal & Professional (management fees) 12,40,50,268 27.2. The AO made enquiries from assessee seeking details of nature of services rendered by the above referred concerns. For the reasons referred in Ground No.4 of the Revenue’s appeal concerning AY 2017-18 (supra), the AO made addition of 40% of such payments made to specified concerns under s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. 27.3. The CIT(A) reversed and deleted the adhoc disallowance made by the AO having regard to the adequacy of the evidences filed and in absence of fair market value of the services brought on record. The CIT(A) however partly confirmed the additions made to the extent of 20% qua the payments made to ‘Tegro India Pvt.Ltd.’ and ‘Univo Edtech Pvt.Ltd.’ 27.4. The assessee has justified the reasonableness of payments to specified concerns as noted under:- Amity Energy & Environment Consultants Pvt Ltd.-Rs.66,83,250/- (inclusive of Service Tax and GST) a. The company was established on 15.01.2004. The company has provided energy conservation consultancy including planning and control of required electrical load, generators, panels etc. planning, implementation and control of air conditioning systems, site remediation planning services, i.e. preparation of plans for the abatement of environmental contamination, usually at a specific site, and evaluation of environmental studies, i.e. provision of analysis that explains the strengths or weaknesses of an environmental study and provides the basis for alternative judgments. b. The amount of Rs.66,83,250/- paid to the entity during the year under consideration is towards the professional fee for Planning, Implementation & Control of Generator, Electrical Load, Air Conditioning, and site restoration and installation of roof top solar system. C. The services provided by the Company are necessary for the assessee trust to develop and maintain it educational institutions/campuses in compliance with energy, environment and other norms issued by National Green Tribunal. Cross Border Legal Systems India Pvt. Ltd.-Rs.4,66,21,000/- (inclusive of Service Tax and GST) a. The Company was incorporated on 30/07/1996. The company is engaged in and providing legal services including dealing with legal cases in ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 35 consumer forum, state commission, national commission, various District Courts, Labour Courts, various High Courts and Supreme Court etc. b. The company handles all operations related to the case and prepares all documentation that may be required for such legal matters. c. The company is responsible to ensure that all hearings / proceedings are attended by a representative. d. There is no exception to the type of legal matters. These may include consumer court issues, labor laws, civil suits, etc. e. The company is having a large number of advocates and senior advocates on its panel that appear in various High Courts and Supreme Court. f. Therefore, the amount paid during the year under consideration is towards providing of above legal services in cases related to various institutions of the trust. Cross Border Placement Pvt Ltd (Payment made Rs. 6,55,15,228/-) a. Company was established in 30.07.1996. The company has provided the placement services to the assessee trust which includes identifying the appropriate human resource, all necessary placement related support services, conduct of interviews and related support facilities. Further the company is extensively engaged in post qualification placement related services to students of the various universities of the assessee trust. It handles all placement cell related operations, coordinates with participating MNC's and domestic companies, manages the database of students and concludes the placement programs of the universities successfully. b. The amount has been paid for the services provided to the trust being maintenance of human resource records, coordination and finalization of fresh recruitments during the year under consideration. During the previous year under consideration, more than 245 companies had participated in the placement program organized by the university. Top recruiters consisted of SAP LABS, WIPRO, MAHINDRA, HCL TECHNOLOGIES, HYUNDAI, etc. and various other public sector units in the placement drive. AKC Data Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.- Rs. 11,15,33,908 a) The above said concerns established in 15/11/1988. It is an ISO 27001 certified company and has a team of more than 230 experienced and qualified software professionals and hardware engineers, who are driven by a passion for excellence in software development, and work diligently to achieve the Company's goal of being to cater to the entire gamut of the computing needs of varied customers. The company is engaged in providing wide range of data services including consultancy, application services, infrastructure services and mobility services which includes: - Enterprise-wide Web Solutions that includes Web Application Development, Website Development, Ecommerce Implementation utilizing Microsoft technologies and Open Source Technologies. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 36 - Software Project Management and Improvement Process. - Software, Hardware and networking maintenance and support services. - Database Maintenance services - Establishment and Maintenance of our own data center with enterprise class Blade servers, Storages, Firewall, Bandwidth management devices and virtualization - Installation and maintenance of WiFi enabled networks, IP camera- based surveillance and Smart card based access control and attendance systems. - Multitiered Database Design, Administration and Data Warehousing Development b) Payment made during the year to the company by the trust is towards the services of hardware development of different IT enabled solutions, hardware maintenance charges, software maintenance charges incurred at different institutions of the trust. Stratega Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.- Rs. 3,02,59,500/- a) The company has handled and executed the support facilities in relation to obtaining the term loan facility, working capital credit and other financial support facility to the assessee trust during the year under consideration. Following services had been provided by the company to the assessee society during the year: - Seeking various approvals and sanctions from governmental regulatory bodies - Furnishing of financials and liasioning thereof with regulatory bodies in educational sector i.e. State UGC Authorities and Department of Education for schools. - Preparation of Budget for each institution - Preparation of project reports, projected data for submission with private and government authorities for issuance of funds and grants. b) The amount paid by the trust to the entity is towards financial and professional services for reconciliation & verification of accounts of various departments of Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and others towards management of insurance policies and tax matters during the year under consideration. Tegro India Pvt. Ltd.- Rs. 4,47,92,240/- a) It is submitted that the company was established way back in year 1979 on 24th of April. The trust had obtained from the Company supervision services of buildings and other infrastructure of the various institutions and campuses of the trust along with project advisory services towards setting up of its campuses during the year under consideration. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 37 b) Also, the company ensures the essential part of safety management i.e. preventive management of any mishappening by conducting regular meetings with concerned stakeholders. During the year a sum of Rs.4,47,92,240/- has been paid to the Company. A sum equivalent to 2% of the civil construction cost is paid to the company based on progress of the project each month due. First Grade Force Pvt. Ltd.- Rs. 7,91,45,536/- a) The company was established way back in year 1995 on 14th of July. The company is engaged in providing physical security services through security guards, personals. The trust has availed the services of the company for multiple institutions, colleges and campuses located in different geographical locations during the year under consideration. b) Further it is pertinent to mention here that the company had employed more than 250 employees and expanded Rs.6.52 Crore (Approx) towards employee benefit expenses (excluding payment to directors and relatives). In view of this, it cannot be presumed that the payments made to company by the trust are not related to objectives and further payments to directors and relatives by the company are unreasonable. Amity Education Services Pvt. Ltd.- Rs.27,36,77,206/- a) The company \"Amity Education Services Private Limited\" is engaged in providing admission related services, including liasoning with students and educational students, Further the company is engaged in providing with vocational training and committed to work towards entry level skill development programs across the country to bridge the existing skill gaps across industries. Apart from above, the company is engaged in providing Professional & Consultancy services in educational field to various educational entities. The assessee trust has availed admission related services from the company during the year under consideration which, inter alia, includes the followings: - On behalf of the institution, advice and counsel the students and parents about the benefit of the various courses and programs - Shortlist eligible students on parameters stated by the institution. - Lead the filtered students to the counselors/Dean of the institutions for the selection process at above locations. b) It is important to note that the company has employed more than 300 employees and expended Rs. 12.34 Crore (Approx) towards employee benefit expenses during the year under consideration as against the payment of Rs.1.51 Crore to directors of the company. Hence, it is clearly inappropriate to treat the payment made to the company unreasonable and in excess. Univo Edtech Pvt Ltd (Formerly know as \"Amity Skills LLP\")- Rs. 12,42,40,489/- (inclusive of service tax and GST) ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 38 a. In this connection, it is submitted that the Amity University, Uttar Pradesh (an Institution of assessee society) had initiated and offered various courses or programs of study under categories like External, Blended and online programs which are duly approved by statutory regulatory body of the University. For the running, operation and management of these online and blended courses and programs, the Amity University had engaged \"Univo Edtech LLP (formerly known as \"Amity Skills LLP\") as service provider in context of the aforesaid objective for the financial year 2017-2018 vide its agreement entered into dated 23.03.2017. b. The Univo Edtech LLP, is thoroughly engaged in providing service in the context of \"Educational Programs\" and facilitation of running such educational programs. The University had engaged the said concern more particularly for availing services in relation to admission of students to the University and for the facility and services of \"help desk for students of the University\", \"online counseling of students\", \"dissemination of University's activities & academic programs/courses among the students and prospective candidates\" and \"advertisement/ online marketing/lead generation services\". In addition to above, the key activities of the Univo Edtech LLP include provision of \"Learning Management System\" (known as LMS) solution for online programs run/offered by the University. The facility of Learning Management System includes, inter alia, the following features: ➤ Enrolling the students, fee collection solution, and documents management relation to students onboarding to the courses. ➤ Students Information System facility which is an information solution assisting in providing, generation of data and reports relating to enrollment details of candidates, semester fee details, queries, results publication interface and importantly a comprehensive students support desk through inbuilt virtual technical support system. ➤ Digital content management including viewing learning content, assignments submission, and assessment. ➤ Faculties support system which includes creating asynchronous multimedia rich content, conducting live interactive video sessions or lectures, webinars from anywhere, assisting the faculties with evaluation of projects and assignments of students. ➤ Information Generation and Reporting Management Information System (MIS) which includes generating and providing the information to the concerned University regarding student wise, program wise analytics on engagement, retention and overall performance and progress reports. ➤ Backend Support system assisting the University by delivering key informative reports in relation to student feedbacks, enquiries, grievances, support request consolidation etc. Cyborg Cyber Forensics & Information Security Pvt. Ltd.-Rs. 49,03,653/- (inclusive of Service Tax and GST) ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 39 The company is engaged in and provided Information security services during the year under consideration to the trust. The payment made to the company during the year is towards conducting of various workshops, training programs on cyber security issues, Cyber awareness training and towards HDD recovery & analysis functions. Your Honors, no specific infirmity had been pointed out by the Ld. AO in this regard. Amity Capital Ventures Private Limited Rs. 19,90,000/-(inclusive of Service Tax and GST) The company is engaged in providing investment related consultancy and advisory services. The trust had availed the investment banking & venture capital services advisory services for financing structure during the year under consideration from the said entity. It is relevant to mention here that no payment has been made to any director or specified person from the above entity during the year. Hence the payments made to the Company are not violative of section 13 of the Act. Education Services Organization Rs.12,29,81,633/- (inclusive of GST and Service tax) a. The organization specializes in procurement and distribution of Study Material for schools online. The books of different publishers are procured as per the Booklist of schools and Study Material Kits are prepared at our Stockpoints with additional stitching/binding. And completed Kits are provided in nice jute packing to the parents as per their requirements. Education Services Organization (ESO), which has end-to-end experience in fulfilling study material and uniform related requirements of schools, colleges and universities across the country. b. The trust has procured various services and materials including procurement of printing and stationery of IT mannual, Class syllabuses, and almanac covers, housekeeping items and housekeeping material for schools cleaning material, A4 Copier paper, answer sheet with OMR, vouchers, gate passes, Library books for senior library and Class libraries, printing of Question Bank for students etc. The trust has mainly engaged in procuring the printing and stationary material, housekeeping material, uniforms, and other essential accessories required to fulfill the students' needs at school and campuses levels. c. It may be pertinent to reiterate the fact that payments made to above organization are for purchase of goods. Because the assessee trust is running educational institutions at various locations across India, the above sum of Rs.12.29 Crore has been incurred as expenditure on procurement of essential educational supplies for different locations of the assessee trust. More importantly, no remuneration has been paid from said entity to any partner of the firm during the year. Amity Education Services, Dubai/ Professional Fees of Rs. 12,40,50,268/- (inclusive of Service tax and GST) ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 40 a. Amity Education Services LLC, a limited liability company, incorporated in Dubai holding commercial license number 691574 to provide education related services in UAE, and having its address at Apricot Tower, Dubai Silicon Oasis, Dubai, UAE. The RBEF Dubai had invested on the infrastructure of the School situated in Dubai. The school holds the necessary licenses and permits required for a K12 British curriculum school. b. During the year under consideration, the RBEF Dubai (Dubai Branch of the assessee) had engaged the concern to provide management services for the School. Under this arrangement, the concern had been given responsibility for the Administration, Operation and Performance of the school. Besides this, the concern was under obligation to perform management of all personnel related functions including but not limited to, appointment/termination of staff, staff accommodation, and medical insurance of staff, visa and other necessary requirement related to maintain the staff in the school, including staff development. Amity Media LLC, Dubai Rs.3,13,00,031/- (inclusive of Service tax and GST) Amity Media FZ LLC is a Dubai based marketing and advertisement company. The company is actively engaged in marketing, advertising, web hosting and other cloud based solutions services. During the year, the assessee society has paid a sum of Rs.3,13,00,031/- to the company towards the following services availed during the financial year 2017-18: - Annual Website Maintenance Services - Website Hosting Charges – - Website Design and Development Charges – - Marketing Expenses, which includes: 1. TV ad and retainer charges 2. Media Planning Service Charges 3. Marketing Design & Creative -Retainer ship Charges 4. Advertisement Charges -Audio and Visual Media with in Sony TV, TV Zee Cinema and Zee TV, CA TV Prime Broadcast, MTV, MTV Colors, NDTV 24x7, Star Plus TV, Radio Marketing Charges with station Suno 1024FM, 106.20 FM and 96.7 FM Spot Sponsorship Charges in various events with Big FM Radio and 96.7 HIT FM. Your Honors, the above said concerns established and are operational for more than 20 years. Further, they have also been subject to scrutiny assessments in the past years, and no addition has been made whatsoever qua any of the said payments. Thus, in view of the settled doctrine of 'principle of consistency', there being no change in the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid payments, no addition is sustainable in the eyes of law. Amounts paid are within the applicable limits of remuneration as laid down in the companies Act, 2013 along with requisite approvals wherever required. It is important to point out that the genuineness of the services provided and the payments made by the assessee has not been ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 41 doubted by the AO. The fact that the above service was provided by them and are not in dispute. Further, payments to these entities being made consistently as tabulated below and no disallowance been made in this regard in the assessment made. Name of concerns AY 2015-16 (FY 2014-15) Ay 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) AY 2017-18 (FY 2016-17) AY 2018-19 (FY 2017-18) Amity Energy & Environment Consultants Pvt.Ltd. 37,07,880 63,61,980 65,55,000 66,83,250 Cross Border Legal Systems Pvt.Ltd. 2,62,24,800 3,52,12,133 3,47,30,000 4,66,21,000 Cross Border Placements Pvt.Ltd. 4,48,28,269 5,31,24,045 5,35,03,000 6,55,15,228 AKC Data Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd. 8,56,24,793 10,10,21,500 11,13,74,480 11,15,33,908 Stratega Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd. 1,82,83,200 2,71,77,520 2,82,90,000 3,02,59,500 Tegro India Pvt.Ltd. 3,89,20,740 4,54,12,040 2,44,19,000 4,47,92,240 Amity Education Services Pvt.Ltd. 11,98,56,146 14,75,75,700 18,49,36,522 27,36,77,206 First Grade Force Pvt.Ltd. 5,75,98,846 6,29,83,358 7,06,66,075 7,91,45,536 Amity University Press 39,83,785 71,24,760 1,46,20,676 98,49,363 Education Services Organization 6,04,87,166 8,64,49,503 10,08,28,056 12,29,81,633 Amity Education Services LLC, Dubai - 9,01,40,678 11,09,59,364 12,40,50,268 27.5. From the tabulations, it is evident that similar services were obtained year after year. The services rendered were not disturbed by the AO. Besides similar estimated additions on payments to specified concerns cropped up in Ground No.3 in AY 2017-18 discussed in para 12 to 15 (supra). The process of reasoning adopted in AY 2017-18 shall apply mutatis mutandis. Consequently, the order of CIT(A) is partly modified and the estimated additions of 20% in relation to payments to two entities stands reversed. 27.6. Consequently Ground No.9 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed whereas Ground No.4 of the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed. 28. Ground No.10 concerns the additions of INR 1,39,99,56,313/- on account of investment made abroad i.e. Dubai. 28.1. Identical additions were made in AY 2017-18 by the Revenue. The issue has been discussed in length in para 16 (supra) with reference to Ground No.5 of appeal in AY 2017-18. On appraisal of facts and law, the CIT(A) has granted relief in AY 2017-18, the reasons for which are enumerated in para 16 (supra). The CIT(A) has returned the identical ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 42 findings for AY 2018-19 in question in view of the similarity of the factual matrix in both AYs. We see ample justification in the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. 28.2. The CIT(A) has dealt with the issue as under:- Ground no. 12 and 13:- “It was submitted that the final addition of Rs 139,99,66,313/- has been made by the Ld. AO on account of remittance made by the assessee society to RBEF Dubai during the year under consideration. The assessee submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the foreign investments were duly admitted by the Ld. AO, and hence no disallowance was made on account of the same vide order assessment dated 29.04.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act (Refer Pg 3331- 3353 of PB). Accordingly, at the very outset, it is reiterated that when the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had only allowed to grant a personal hearing and again pass the assessment order as per law, then having accepted such payments, disallowance on account of the same in the impugned assessment order involves the contempt of order of Court, and hence, the said disallowance is liable to be deleted. The principles of consistency It was seen that in earlier year (AY 2014-15, AY 2015-16)) also assessee has incurred similar expenditure. In earlier years the assessee disallowed the same in computation of income itself however no separate addition was made by AO in these years. As the appeals for these years are also before me the fact are verifiable. For ready reference the computation for these years is reproduced below- Name: RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION Address: E-27, Defence Colony New Delhi Status: AOP (TRUST) Financial Year: 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 P. A. No.: AAATR7314Q Statement of Assessable Income Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Gross Receipt as per Income & Expenditure A/c 10,15,07,25,584 Less: Expenditure incurred towards the object of the Trust 8,77,61,13,695 Less: Depreciation 117,94,20,118 ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 43 Less: Provision for Gratuity 9,15,81,012 Add: Gratuity Paid 52,08,490 Add: Capital Expenditure 3,25,33,80,548 10,76,37,01,603 Less Expenditure incurred outside India has not been considered while 69,58,57,552 calculating application of income U/s 11(1) 10,00,78,44,050 Net Surplus/Deficit) 8,28,81,533 Less: 15% of Gross receipts extent to available surplus 8,28,81,533 Net Taxable Income NIL Tax Due NIL Less: Taxes Paid (TDS) 5,99,31,362 Refund Due 5,99,31,362 Name: RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION Address: E-27, Defence Colony New Delhi Status: AOP (TRUST) Financial Year: 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 P. A. No.: AAATR7314Q Statement of Assessable Income Amount(Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Gross Receipt as per Income & Expenditure A/c 11,66,50,49,236 Less Expenditure incurred towards the object of the Trust 9,56,53,27,523 Less: Depreciation 1,35,85,43,584 Less: Provision for Gratuity 7,35,55,727 Add: Gratuity Paid 1,53,36,710 Add: Capital Expenditure 3,89,14,32,055 12.06,99,96,877 Less: Expenditure incurred outside India has not been considered while 1,49,21,28,632 calculating application of income U/s 11(1) 10,57,78,68,244 Net Surplus/(Deficit) 1,08,71,80,992 Less: 15% of Gross receipts extent to available surplus 1,08,71,80,992 ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 44 Net Taxable Income NIL Tax Due NIL Less: Taxes Paid (TDS) 3,90,58,666 Refund Due 3,90,58,666 It is settled principle in law that while res-judicata does not, strictly speaking, apply to income-tax proceedings, the Courts (including the Hon'ble apex Court) have repeatedly emphasized that where the fundamental facts remained the same in different assessment years, it is not open for the Revenue to take one view in certain years and another view in other years. When on identical facts no addition was made in AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 then, it was not open for the AO to take one view in those years and another view in this year. Therefore the addition deserves to be deleted on the principles of consistency itself. On merits The AO held that the money set aside in earlier year was used for these expenses and added the same u/s 11(1)(a). For ready reference the computation of income for current year is reproduced below: Name: RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION Address: E-27, Defence Colony New Delhi Status: AOP (TRUST) Financial Year: 01.04.2017 10 31.03.2018 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 P. A. No.: AAATR7314Q Statement of Assessable Income. Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Gross Receipt as per Income & Expenditure A/c 18,30,30,16,422 Less: Expenditure incurred towards the object of the Trust 16,77,81,23,568 Less: Depreciation 2,43,15,66,820 Provision for Gratuity 10,08,20,446 Add: Gratuity Paid 2,10,82,830 Add: Capital Expenditure 4,25,15,03,192 18,51,83,22,325 Less: Expenditure Incurred outside India has not been considered while 2,47,40,93,045 calculating application of income, U/s 11(1) 16,04,42,29,280 ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 45 Net Surplus/(Deficit) 2,25,87,87,141 Less: 15% of Gross receipts extent to available surplus 2,25,87,87,141 Net Taxable Income - Tax Due NIL Less: Taxes Paid TDS, TCS & Advance Tax 3,15,70,138 Refund Due 3,15,70,138 It shows that Gross Receipt as per Income & Expenditure A/c was Rs. 18,30,30,16,422/- and total expenditure including expenditure incurred outside India was Rs. 16,77,81,23,568/-. As the Gross Receipt (as per Income & Expenditure A/c) of Rs.18,30,30,16,422 was more than total expenditure (including expenditure incurred outside India) of Rs. 16,77,81,23,568/-, it can be presumed that the expenditure incurred outside India was out of current years receipts. Therefore the same has to be disallowed u/s 11(1)(c) as assessee has not obtained permission under proviso to sec 11(1)(c). As the assessee has suo-moto disallowed the same (Rs.2,47,40,93,045/-) in the computation itself, addition of same by AO would result in double addition. The AO is therefore directed to delete this addition. “This ground of appeal is allowed. 28.3. The reasoning noted above are self-explanatory. The assessee himself has disallowed the expenditure incurred & applied outside India for the purposes of eligible exemption under s. 11 of the Act. Thus, no further disallowance is called for. We thus decline to interfere with the findings of CIT(A). 28.4. Ground No.10 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 29. Ground No.11 concerns additions of INR 2,87,47,526/- made on account of foreign remittances by the Trust. In the assessment proceedings, the AO required the assessee to submit details of foreign remittances and copy of Form 15CA & 15CB alongwith justification of such remittances. The assessee submitted the details of foreign payments made during the year alongwith supporting documents such as copy of Form 15CA, 15CB & bank statement and explanation/justification with respect to their incurrence for promoting charitable purposes in India. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 46 However, the AO did not find the explanation satisfactory and disallowed such payments. The AO observed that the payments made to 'Herrick Feinstein LLP' and 'Jones Lang Americas, INC’ related to acquisition of property in USA for use of educational purposes. However since the acquired Institutions are not part of the assessee trust and are located at outside India, the AO disallowed these payments. It was contended before the AO that the payments have been made to these entities towards due diligence and site assessment consulting for expansion of AMITY Group. Such payments are directly linked to aim and object of the Trust for educational objectives which include the establishment and expansion of educational institutions both in India and abroad. The AO however disallowed the payments. The AO also disallowed the payments made for advertisement charges paid to ‘Facebook Ireland Ltd.’ stating that the advertisement in foreign media to attract foreign students are not in the line of trust objectives and the expenditure was not for the benefit of Indian student. The AO also disallowed the payments for the reason that the assessee lacked approval under s. 11(1)(c) to treat this as an application of income outside India. The assessee contended before the AO that the payment to Face book Ireland Ltd. are made for advertisement purposes and made for promoting the charitable educational programme and events conducted by the assessee in India. The advertisements made were targeted to attract the foreign students who were enrolled with AMITY India and not in foreign country. Thus, one cannot say that the payments towards advertisements were not aligned with Trusts objective. 29.1. In first appeal, the CIT(A) dealt with the issue as under:- Ground No.11:- “The assessee submitted that the addition has been made holding that the foreign remittances made by assessee are neither related to the assessee society nor incurred for charitable purposes in India. The assessee submitted that the addition has been made ignoring the detailed submission and explanation given by the assessee to justify that ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 47 these remittances have been made solely & exclusively for the activities of the assessee society & be allowed as application of income. The assessee submitted that the learned AO has erred in making the above addition holding that the assessee has not obtained approval u/s 11(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. It is seen that the Payments made to 'Herrick Feinstein LLP' and 'Jones Lang Americas, INC are in connection with acquisition of a property in USA. It is seen that Payments made to Face book Ireland Ltd. are towards advertisement charges. The assessee submitted that the payments made to 'Herrick Feinstein LLP' and 'Jones Lang Americas, INC' were towards seeking assistance with due diligence and site assessment consulting fee for expansion of AMITY Group. Your Honors, such payments are exclusively covered by aims and objects of the assessee society, and hence, the contention of the Ld. AO that the educational institution acquired are not a part of assessee trust, and hence, the payments made are not for its objects has no legs to stand upon. The assessee submitted that the payments to Face book Ireland Ltd. were towards advertisement charges solely for the advertisement incurred for charitable purpose in India. It is pertinent to mention here that Amity has significant number of students from foreign territory as well which are enrolled with Amity India. Therefore, advertisement payments have been made as part of its expansion of educational activities through foreign students. Your Honors, it is undisputed that the foreign students had been enrolled with Amity India and not in any foreign country, and hence, the contention of the Ld. AO that advertisements given in foreign newspapers and foreign media to attract foreign students is not in line with the objects of the trust is without any shred of evidence. In-fact, the Ld. AO has himself deployed the phrase 'prima facie, which is self-sufficient to discern that the order has been passed in a dilemmatic state of mind, without appreciating the peculiar facts of the present case in the right perspective. It is seen that the Payments made to 'Herrick Feinstein LLP' and 'Jones Lang Americas, INC' are in connection with acquisition of a property in USA. When application of income outside India is not allowable u/S 11(1)(c) of the IT Act, (unless Board's approval is taken) then the incidental expenses to the same are also not allowable u/s 11(1)(c) of the act. Therefore the addition w.r.t. these entities is confirmed. The same would be considered along with other disallowance of similar nature in ground no.12 & 13. It is seen that Payments made to Face book Ireland Ltd. are towards advertisement charges. Even if the payment is made outside India, the same was to enroll the foreign students with Amity India and not in any foreign country. Considering above the addition w.r.t. this entity is directed to be deleted.” ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 48 29.2. In the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee adverted to the ‘order giving appeal effect dated 22.12.2023’ wherein the AO himself has granted relief on this count. The Ld. Counsel thus submitted that the grievance of the Revenue no longer remains. 29.3. On merits, the Ld. Counsel made oral and written submissions, which is noted hereunder:- 4. “In respect of remittances made, assessee submits as under:- g. in this regard, it is submitted that the assessee trust had made certain foreign remittances during the year for availing multiple services which, inter alia, include advertisement services incurred for promotion of various educational programmes and events conducted by the assessee, consultancy services for research, analysis and strategies, analyzing the market and possibilities for setting up of new educational institutions, legal services in respect of legal matters, membership fees of international institutions and certain international certification services which includes \"Green Building Registration\" for its domestic educational campuses buildings. h. the payments made to 'Herrick Feinstein LLP' and 'Jones Lang Americas, INC' were towards seeking assistance with due diligence and site assessment consulting fee for expansion of AMITY Group. i. such payments are exclusively covered by aims and objects of the assessee society, and hence, the contention of the Ld. AO that the educational institution acquired are not a part of assessee trust, and hence, the payments made are not for its objects has no legs to stand upon. j. Similarly, the payments to Facebook Ireland Ltd. were towards advertisement charges solely for the advertisement incurred for charitable purpose in India. It is pertinent to mention here that Amity has significant number of students from foreign territory as well which are enrolled with Amity India. Therefore, advertisement payments have been made as part of its expansion of educational activities through foreign students. It is undisputed that the foreign students had been enrolled with Amity India and not in any foreign country, and hence, the contention of the Ld. AO that advertisements given in foreign newspapers and foreign media to attract foreign students is not in line with the objects of the trust is without any shred of evidence. In-fact, the Ld. AO has himself deployed the phrase 'prima facie', which is self-sufficient to discern that the order has been passed in a dilemmatic state of mind, without appreciating the peculiar facts of the present case in the right perspective. ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 49 k. Thus, all the foreign remittances have been incurred for the sole objective of the trust i.e. education, promoting the educational activities and establishment of educational institutions. l. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions), Bangalore vs Ohio University Christ College [2018] 408 ITR 352, wherein the Hon'ble Court has affirmed the views of the Bangalore Tribunal, wherein it has been further observed that what is determinative is not the place where expenditure has been incurred, but the place where such expenditure has been utilized, and in case the expenditure incurred in foreign country is in respect of charitable objects carried out in India, then the same is allowable as deduction u/s 11 of the Act: 4.5.2 The services have been utilized for the purposes of the Trust's objectives in India, viz. of imparting higher education in India. Ohio University has also offered the income earned by it from the assessee trust to tax in India. In the light of the above-mentioned facts, it is clear that the activities of the assessee trust were conducted in India in accordance with its objects. 4.5.3 As regards the payments being made out of India, we concur with the view of the learned CIT (Appeals) that merely because the payments are made outside India, it cannot be said that the charitable activities were also conducted outside the country. In this regard, the judicial decisions of the ITAT, Mumbai and Delhi Benches, cited by the assessee, squarely apply to the case on hand. In the case of Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council v. ITO, reported in 68 ITD 95 (Mum), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal at para 33 thereof held as under:- \"33. A bare reading of the sub-s. 11(1)(a) does not leave us in doubt that the requirement under s. 11 is for application of income for purposes in India and it does not restrict the application of income within the territory of India. The charitable purpose for which the income should be applied for claiming exemption under s. 11(1)(a) should be in India. In this case, it is not disputed that the Trade Delegation had been sent abroad for the benefit of the entire trade in India. The exports are made from India and the purpose for sending the Delegation was to increase the possibilities of exports out of India. We accordingly hold that since the assessee has applied the income for charitable purposes in India, the mere fact that the expenditure has been incurred out of India, does not disqualify expenditure from exemption under s. 11(1)(a).\"  In the case of NASSCOM v. DDIT in 130 377 (Del), the Delhi Bench of the Tribuna para 11 thereof has held as under:- \"11. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the provisions of s. 11(1)(a) of the Act clearly shows that the words used are \"Is applied to such purpose in India\". The words are not \"is applied in India\". The fact that the legislature has put the words \"to such purpose\" ITA Nos.143 to 144/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.55 & 56/Del/2024 Page | 50 between 'Is applied' and 'in India' shows that the application of income need not be in India, but the application should result and should be for the purpose of charitable and religious purpose in India.” 29.4. It is the essential contention of the assessee that the provision of s.11(1)(a) of the Act clearly shows that words used are ‘is applied to such purpose in India’. The words are not ‘is applied in India’. 29.5. Having regard to the judgements quoted and also in view of the order of the AO giving appeal effect on the issue and relief granted by the CIT(A), we see no compelling reason to take a different view. 30. Ground No.11 of the Revenue’s appeal is thus dismissed. 31. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2018-19 is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed. 32. In the combined result, both the captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Cross-Objections filed by the assessee [Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19] are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "