- (1.) Heard Sri Alok Mathur, learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent.
(2.) This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " Act 1961") arising from judgment dated ITA No. 758/LKW/2014 relating to assessment year 2010-11.
(3.) Tribunal considered following five issues, raised by Revenue in appeal before Tribunal challenging order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur dated 12.06.2014:- "• That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in allowing exemption U/S 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT-I, Kanpur has withdrawn the registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 granted to the assessee on the basis that the assessee was carrying on its educational activities on commercial basis and income derived therefore was being diverted for the personal uses of the members of the society. • That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that restoration of registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Hon'ble ITAT was not accepted by the department and the same is pending before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad for adjudication. • That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has rightly treated income of the assessee as Income from business or profession treating the status of the society as an AOP. • That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on fact in not appreciating the fact that payment of salary to persons specified u/s 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was excessive and the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed Rs. 5,40,000/- under this head. • That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,72,908/- under the head interst on TDS without appreciating the fact the assessee could not substantiate the expenditure during the course of assessment proceedings. • That the order of learned CIT (A)-II, Kanpur dated 12.06.2014 needs to be quashed and the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 25.02.2013 to be restored";