467
June 29 To July 5, 2019 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 45 u 55requirements of section 54 would be satis-
fied if these conditions are met with. The
revenue strangely argued that the transferer
of a capital asset of a residential unit, in
order to claim benefit of section 54, must
also transfer the land appurtenant thereto.
Firstly, there is no such prescription under
section 54(1) of the Act.
In case of a constructed building of a Co-op-
erative Housing Society, member owns con-
structed property and along with other
members enjoys possessory rights over land
on which such building is situated. Therefore,
merely because housing complex was situat-
ed on a piece of land which was occupied
by Co-operative Housing Society under a
long-term lease, would make no difference.
Thus, assessee’s claim for deduction was to
be allowed.
orporation established for welfare of C
employees of police dept. not entitled
for sec. 10(26B) exemption: HCArunachal Police Housing And Welfare Cor-
poration Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 106 taxmann.
com 53 (Gau.)
The assessee-corporation was set-up for
the benefit of Police personnel serving in
Arunachal Pradesh. It claimed exemption
under section 10(26B). Assessing Officer (AO)
rejected-assessee’s claim holding that it was
not formed for promoting the interest of
the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
or backward classes.
The High Court held that a perusal of the
objects of the assessee-corporation would
disclose that the same had not been set-
up exclusively for Scheduled Castes or the
Schedule Tribes or backward classes even
among the police personnel.
The exemption under section 10(26B) that can
be claimed is only when the institution or
association has been established and formed
for promoting the interest of the Scheduled
Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or backward
classes or of any two or all of them.
The main object of corporation was to for-
mulate and execute housing schemes for the
benefit and welfare of the Police Department,
Government of Arunachal Pradesh without
specific reference to any category of employ-
ee in the Police Department, much less the
Scheduled Tribe personnel.
Corporation was not set-up for the purpose
of the general population but was limited
to a particular class of employees of the
Government of Arunachal Pradesh. In such
circumstance, all persons of the Police De-
partment couldn’t be considered as belonging
to Schedule Tribe, even if the reservation
policy for recruitment was kept in view.
Therefore, in such circumstance, the benefit
of the provision was not applicable to the
present case.oviding golf facilities to members Pr
for promotion of Golf was charitable
in nature: HCCIT (Exemptions) v. Bombay Presidency Gold
Club Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.com 58 (Bom.)
The assessee-golf club was a trust and its
main object was to provide golf facilities
to its members for promotion of the sport.
Assessing Officer (AO) found that the asses-
see-trust invested its surplus funds in the
banks and earned interest of ` 2.17 crores.
He held that the assessee did not satisfy the
conditions of ‘charitable purpose’ as contained
in section 2(15); thus, the interest income of
`2.17 crores was not exempt from tax.
Tribunal held that the assessee was under
legal obligation to invest surplus funds in
banks or financial institutions. The Tribunal
opined that the assessee did not carry out
any activity in the nature of commerce or
business, thus, interest income was exempt
under section 11.WEEKLY REVIEW