The Southern India Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. The Deputy Director of Income-tax, (Exemptions)-II, Chennai / The Director of Income-tax, (Exemptions)-II, Chennai
[Citation -2020-LL-0123-73]
Citation | 2020-LL-0123-73 |
---|---|
Appellant Name | The Southern India Chamber of Commerce and Industry |
Respondent Name | The Deputy Director of Income-tax, (Exemptions)-II, Chennai / The Director of Income-tax, (Exemptions)-II, Chennai |
Court | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
Relevant Act | Income-tax |
Date of Order | 23/01/2020 |
Assessment Year | 2009-10 |
Judgment | View Judgment |
Keyword Tags | withdrawal of registration • cancellation of registration |
Bot Summary: | For Petitioner : Mr. R. Venkat Narayanan for Mr. Subbraya Aiyar Ramamani For Respondents : Mr. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar Junior Standing Counsel for Mrs. Hema Muralikrishna Senior Standing Counsel ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Second Respondent and quash the Impugned Notice issued under Section 12AA(3) of the Act in DIT(E) No.124 III/12AA(3)/2011-2012 dated 01-11-2011 for the assessment year 2009-2010 and direct the Second Respondent to drop the proceedings initiated for withdrawing the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 01.11.2011 seeking to revoke the registration granted to the Petitioner under Section 12A of Income Tax Act, 1961 under Sub-section A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main income of the Petitioner appears to be from issue of Certificate of origin, Certificate of invoice, Electricity Charges, Conservancy charges, Security Charges and rent from commercial complexes. As far as the assessment proceedings are concerned, the issue went up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal by an order dated 17.04.2015 has ultimately come to a conclusion that the activity of the Petitioner is charitable in nature. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the following three cases which appear to be in favour of the Petitioner. The Second Respondent shall therefore consider the order passed by the Tribunal in the Petitioner's own case and the decisions which have been cited above by the Petitioner while disposing the impugned proceedings. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. |