* Enter a valid Journal (must The assessee also pointed out that since registration under section 12A of the Act was in force for the assessment year, the claim of deduction under section 11 of the Act was correct and there was no error on the part of Assessing Officer in allowing the same, where the Assessing Officer had made proper ITA No.1177/PUN/2013 Maharashtra Cricket Association enquiries regarding various aspects of the issues. CIT erred on facts and in law in concluding that Sponsorship Receipts were given a go-by by Assessing Officer.

change.Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment.By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter.Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. With regard to first issue, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was receiving subsidies from BCCI since 1994 i.e.

He further stressed that the assessee conducts national level matches and the question was whether the subsidy received from BCCI was voluntary or not. He stressed that the Commissioner could not exercise the power under section 263 of the Act for making enquiries in a particular manner.22. In this regard, he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Honble Bombay High Court in,6 and 7 of the said judgment. The Commissioner exercised jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer while completing assessment proceedings had failed to look into various aspect of the case and had only concentrated on the amendment to section 2(15) of the Act by introduction of proviso. Therefore, on the preliminary issue itself, we set- aside the order of the Commissioner as being bereft of the requisite conditions prescribed u/s 263(1) of the Act. Coming to the next stand of Commissioner, wherein he alleged that since BCCI retains some money, it could not be said that it was voluntary contribution. I used to play professional cricket in Indore which is a district called as a division in cricketing parlance. were not to be taxed considering the amendments to section 2(15) of the Act. It was pointed out that since the assessee had the benefit of registration under section 12A of the Act for assessment year 2008-09, the assessees claim of capital expenditure as an application of income was perfectly legal, well founded and well settled. / Guard file. On this aspect also, we find that the queries made by the Assessing Officer, which we have reproduced above and the explanations furnished by the assessee thereof copies of which have been placed on record, belie the assertions of the Commissioner. change in accounting policy from cash to mercantile system.

(vi) If while making the assessment, the A.O examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determine the income, the CIT, while exercising his power under s. 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the A.O.

Reference was made to para 21 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in,24. assessment year 2009-10. However, such is not the case in the present set of facts before us. The relevant findings are in paras 50 and 51, which read as under:-.50. In the instant case as recorded earlier, the ITO had by his order dated 30th October, 1996 sought details/explanation from the assessee which the assessee had given by his letter dated 5th November, 1996. The assessee also referred to the activities and objects of the Trust in this regard and in reply to the query raised by Assessing Officer on Capital Reserve with details of additions during the year, the assessee explained as under:-.10. In such circumstances, the issue is whether the Commissioner can exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act for making enquiries in particular manner. The next issue raised by the Commissioner was whether expenditure incurred on infrastructure and construction of stadium was to be allowed as capital expenditure in the hands of assessee and whether such an issue having not been looked into by the Assessing Officer, makes the order erroneous.

The Tribunal vide para 50 noted the queries raised by Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and have held that in such circumstances, there was no merit in the charge made by the Commissioner of non-application of mind by Assessing Officer on the said aspect. We have considered the arguments advanced by the Advocates appearing for the Revenue as well as Assessee. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. CIT erred in holding that voluntary contributions from BCCI are not in the nature of voluntary contributions.3. Menu. It was further clarified that the said subsidy was in the nature of financial assistance given to promote public ITA No.1177/PUN/2013 Maharashtra Cricket Association objective and hence, the subsidy was not the same thing as remuneration.