Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M. Chhaya, Ilesh J. Vora, JJ.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) – Appellant
Versus
Jamnagar Area Development Authority – Respondent
R/Tax Appeal No. 241 of 2020
Decided On : 22-09-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Gujarat Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 - Section 4 and 5 – Offence of online gambling and online rummy- Illegal activities - It is possible that without proper monitoring they may access to the gambling Websites as readily as they could access the indecent materials - The supporters of a ban of Internet gambling maintain that outlawing the activity for all individuals is only way to ensure that a segment of the population, children, will be adequately protected from corruption.
Facts of the Case: Applicant that the “online gambling” websites/mobile apps (applications) are mushrooming at an alarming level. It is pointed out that several “online gambling” apps are promoted and targeted in the State of Gujarat too. Such gambling platforms are thus engaged in illegal activities, however, the same remains unchecked/uncontrolled owing to certain deficiencies in the Gujarat Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 - Counsel for writ applicant that one would get to see several advertisements of the gambling websites while accessing mobile applications and social media on smart phones. Such advertisements would entice individuals with small amount as credit to start playing rummy promising lakhs of rupees in return - Such incentives lure the people to indulge in gambling and, ultimately, get addicted to the same.
Findings of the Court: It is not permissible for us, in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to direct the State Government to enact a particular type of legislation to take care of the situation - However, we can always draw the attention of the State Government to all the aforesaid facts so that the State Government can look into the matter at the earliest and do the needful in accordance with law.
Result: Writ application is dispose of.
ORDER :
R.M. CHHAYA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant –revenue.
2. By this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake of brevity) the appellant – Revenue has challenged the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA No.2428/AHD/2017 for AY 2014-15.
3. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal.
3.1. That the respondent–assessee filed it return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 23.1.2015 and declared total income as NIL. On assessment being made under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer by its order dated 28.12.2016 assessed the total income of the respondent –assessee at Rs.9,76,50,250/-. The AO came to the conclusion that assessee was engaged in the Area Development and Town Planning and carrying out the activity of general public utility. According to the AO, the respondent – assessee was not carrying out any charitable activities and was squarely covered by proviso 1 & 2 to Section 2(15) r/w Section 13(8) of the Act and ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondent-assessee is not eligible for any of the exemption claimed under Section 11 and 12 of the Act and accordingly passed assessment order in question. The respondent – assessee filed an Appeal before the CIT(A), which came to be partly allowed vide order dated 21.8.2017 subject to directions contained in para 9 of the order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 21.8.2017 passed by the CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2019.
3.2. The Revenue in this appeal has raised the contention to the effect that the Tribunal as well as CIT(A) have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that activity carried on by the respondent –assessee are charitable in question and has raised the following substantial questions of law
B. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Section 11 of the Act of Rs.1,90,739/- being capital receipts/grants from Government of Gujarat without appreciating the fact that the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 2(15) r.s13(8) of the Act ?
C. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Section 11 of the Act of Rs.8,00,00,000/- being grants under UDP 56 and UDP 78 without appreciating the fact that the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 2(15) r.s 13(8) of the Act ?
D. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Section 11 of the Act on Rs.50,35,340/- being receipts towards saleable FSI without appreciating the fact that the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 2(15) r.w 13(8) of the Act ?
E. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Section 11 of the Act on Rs.2,34,59,153/- being receipts towards service and amenities fees without appreciating the fact that the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 2(15) r.w 13(8) of the Act ?
F. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Section 11 of the Act of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
