$ 16 & 17 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 60/2015 + ITA 61/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Singh and Mr. Shikhar Garg, jr. standing counsel versus ST. VASWANI EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... Respondent Through Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vivek Bansal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER % 20.05.2015 1. following questions of law arise for consideration : (1) Whether ITAT erred in holding that assessee was entitled for exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act? (2) Whether revenue is correct in contending that assessee violated Section 13 of Income Tax Act and was thus disentitled to benefit of Section 11? (3) Was ITAT justified in directing that addition made on account of development funds and on account programme under reconstruction and project funds were not covered under Section 11(1)(b) read with Section 12 of Income Tax Act? 2. In given circumstances of case concerned years are AY 2001-02 (ITA No.61/2015) and AY 2002-03 (ITA No.60/2015). 3. findings in respect of these questions have been concurrently rendered against revenue. ITAT noticed specifically that receipts were voluntary contributions and more importantly they form part of corpus of trust and when made donors specifically directed their use for said purpose. In view of these no question of law arises. We however, clarify that this question does not arise in regular assessment. matter has been kept open for consideration in appeals arising from block assessment. 4. In ITA No.60/2015 revenue has urged another question with respect to claim of depreciation in respect of building constructed by assessee. In view of previous finding regarding validity of exemption under Section 11, this question does not arise for consideration. 5. In view of above, both appeals are accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J R.K.GAUBA, J MAY 20, 2015 vld Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. St. Vaswani Education Society