2012 (4) TMI 635 - AT - Income Tax

Entitled for exemption u/s. 11 - approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) - Held that - In the present case, the issue is relating to allowability of exemption under S.11 or under S.10(23C), and while adjudicating on this issue one has to see the eligibility of claiming of deduction under S.11. This aspect has not been proper addressed by the CIT(A) while granting the alternative claim of the assessee for exemption under S.11. Since the Assessing Officer has no occasion to examine the claim of the assessee under S.11, we have given suitable directions, in the preceding para, to the Assessing Officer for verification. Claim under S.32(1) - Held that - Assessing Officer is directed to verify in respect of each asset on which depreciation claimed, whether the value of such asset was in fact allowed under S.11, and if it was so allowed, the depreciation would not be allowed in respect of such asset. Only if the value of the asset was not allowed as expenditure under S.11, the Assessing Officer is required to allow depreciation thereon, as per the rate applicable to those assets, as held in the case of Mahila Sidh Nirman Yojna, cited supra. This issue raised by the Revenue is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, in the light of the above observations.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) is mandatory when gross receipts exceed Rs. 1 crore.
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Whether depreciation on capital assets is allowable when the cost of acquisition has been treated as an application of income.
4. Whether contributions received towards the corpus of the trust should be treated as income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Approval under Section 10(23C)(vi):
The primary issue revolves around whether obtaining approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) is mandatory when gross receipts exceed Rs. 1 crore and if the assessee can claim exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal reiterated that if donations are received compulsorily for admission of students, the institution is not entitled to exemption under either Section 10(23C) or Section 11. This stance is supported by previous Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court judgments in the cases of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy of Education, which held that institutions collecting capitation fees cannot be considered charitable. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the assessing officer to verify if the assessee collected any capitation fees and decide accordingly.

2. Exemption under Section 11:
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 if it collected any money over and above the prescribed fees for admission of students. The assessing officer is directed to examine whether any such collection was made and decide the issue afresh in light of the Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee must prove that the contributions received are not capitation fees but are genuinely for the corpus of the trust.

3. Depreciation on Capital Assets:
The issue of whether depreciation on capital assets is allowable when the cost of acquisition has been treated as an application of income was also addressed. The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including those of the Jaipur Bench and the Delhi Bench, which held that depreciation is allowable unless the entire value of the asset has been allowed as an expenditure under Section 11. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the assessing officer to verify if the value of the asset was allowed under Section 11 and to allow depreciation only if it was not.

4. Contributions towards Corpus of the Trust:
The Tribunal examined whether contributions received towards the corpus of the trust should be treated as income. It was noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the donations were received with a specific direction to form part of the corpus. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to give the assessee another opportunity to provide necessary evidence to prove that the donations were for the corpus and not capitation fees. The assessing officer is to decide this issue afresh based on the evidence provided.

Separate Judgments:
The Tribunal delivered a consolidated judgment for all the appeals, addressing common issues across different educational institutions. The directions and findings were consistent across the cases, with specific instructions to the assessing officers to re-examine the facts and decide afresh based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and other relevant judgments.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals for statistical purposes, remitting the matters back to the assessing officers for fresh consideration. The key directives included verifying the collection of capitation fees, reassessing the eligibility for exemptions under Section 11, and determining the allowability of depreciation on capital assets. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the assessee to provide clear evidence to support their claims for exemptions and contributions towards the corpus.

← Previous Next →