Dmt 1 ita3177-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3177 OF 2010 The Director of Income-Tax (Exemption). ..Appellant. Vs. Indian Electrical & Electronics Manufacturers Association. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Counsel with D. Damodar for Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 6TH JULY, 2011. P.C. Six substantial questions of law raised by the revenue in this appeal read thus : i) “Whether, on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in granting Dmt 2 ita3177-10 exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in respect of the income which arose from conducting exhibitions, ignoring the fact that such income is taxable as income from business as the same is not incidental to the objects of the assessee trust”? ii) “Whether, on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in ignoring the fact that the AO has given categorical findings that mere maintenance of cash books/ledger is not sufficient to qualify for the mandatory requirement of maintaining separate books of accounts for exhibition activity”? iii) “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in holding that assessee has fulfilled the conditions as laid down u/s 11(4)(A) of the I.T. A CT, 1961 and is therefore entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act 1961”? iv) “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and Dmt 3 ita3177-10 in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in ignoring the fact the earlier assessment years, the organizing trade fair was considered as business activity as defined in Sec. 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961”? v) “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in directing the AO to set off the deficit of earlier years to the surplus of this year and consider such adjustment as application of income for charitable purpose”? vi) “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in ignoring the ratio laid down in the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Akhey Ram Ishwari Prasad Trust vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 281 and also in the Mumbai Tribunal’s decision in the case of Trustees of Sri Sathya Sai Trust (33 ITD 320)”? 2. As regards question nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, Counsel Dmt 4 ita3177-10 for the parties state that similar questions raised by the Revenue in the assessee’s own case being Income Tax Appeal No. 2415 of 2010 has been dismissed by us today. For the reasons recorded therein, question nos. 1 to 4 cannot be entertained. 3. As regards question nos. 5 is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that the Tribunal has decided the said question by relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Institute of Banking reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom). Since the decision of the Tribunal is based on a decision of this Court, we do not propose to entertain question nos. 5. 4. Question no. 6 being a consequential question, the said question cannot be entertained. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)