9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of "substantially financed by the Government" under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term "substantially financed by the Government" as mentioned in section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act. The revenue contended that financing to the extent of 90 percent should be provided by the Government for an institution to be considered substantially financed. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) held that if 2/3rd of the expenditure is financed by the Government, it meets the substantial financing criteria. The term "substantial" has not been defined in the Income-tax Act, leading to a debate on what constitutes substantial financing. The dictionary meaning of "substantial" denotes "considerable," "for most part," and "mainly," suggesting that considerable financial support from the Government should suffice. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the term "substantial" in a different context emphasized that it means having substance, essential, real, important, or considerable. The court also highlighted that a substantial question of law arises when there is room for difference of opinion, indicating that a 50 percent chance of interpretation on either side qualifies as substantial. The term "substantial" in legal references has been associated with "so far as practicable" or "as far as possible." In further analysis, the judgment refers to other legal provisions where the term "substantial interest" is defined. For instance, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, defines substantial interest as a beneficial interest exceeding 10 percent of the total capital subscribed by all partners of a firm. Similarly, the Income-tax Act's Explanation to section 40A(2) defines substantial interest based on voting power, indicating that a person with over 20 percent voting power in a company is deemed to have a substantial interest. Applying these definitions to the case at hand, it is argued that the institution in question has been substantially financed by the Government. The Government grants received significantly covered the revenue deficit, indicating substantial financial support. For instance, in one assessment year, the grant amount far exceeded the receipts from students, demonstrating the Government's substantial contribution to the institution's finances. Based on this analysis, the Ld. CIT(A) was deemed justified in concluding that the institution qualified for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act. In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the revenue's appeals, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision regarding the institution's eligibility for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) based on the interpretation of "substantially financed by the Government." The case highlights the importance of defining terms like "substantial" in legal contexts and emphasizes the significant role of Government financing in determining an institution's eligibility for tax exemptions under relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act.
|
