9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1113 - AT - Income TaxStatus of the assessee - treated as AJP as declared by the assessee or AOP as proposed by the AO - entitlement to exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) - whether the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s. 11? - Held that - We find that the issues raised by the revenue in its ground of appeal have all been dealt with by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee s own case viz. Children Education Society (2013 (7) TMI 519 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ). On the question of status of the assessee the Hon ble High Court has held that the same has to be adopted as AJP. On the question of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act the Hon ble High Court has held that the assessee was entitled to the said exemption and that the receipts of each of the educational institutions have to be considered separately and not by aggregation. With regard to the receipts by way of building fund and infrastructure development fund the Hon ble High court remanded the same to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration to look into the ledger books and other accounts showing the receipts on account of building fund and infrastructure fund and its utilization for the purpose of construction and on that basis pass suitable orders.
Issues Involved:
1. Status of the assessee (AJP vs. AOP) 2. Entitlement to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) 3. Entitlement to exemption under Section 11 4. Treatment of building fund and infrastructure development fund as capital receipts or revenue receipts 5. Treatment of donations to other institutions as application of income for charitable purposes 6. Levy of interest under Section 234B Detailed Analysis: 1. Status of the Assessee (AJP vs. AOP): The primary issue was whether the assessee should be assessed as an Association of Juridical Person (AJP) or an Association of Persons (AOP). The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of AJP status, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The AO, however, continued to adopt AOP status to keep the issue alive for appeal. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, reiterating that the status should be AJP based on the assessee's own case history. 2. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad): The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) for its educational institutions with annual receipts less than Rs. 1 crore. The AO aggregated the receipts of all institutions, denying the exemption. The CIT(A), following the Tribunal's earlier decision, granted the exemption, considering each institution separately. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the Karnataka High Court's ruling that receipts should be considered individually. 3. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 11: The AO denied exemption under Section 11 due to the lack of registration under Section 12A. The CIT(A) did not address this directly, as the assessee received relief under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The Tribunal, however, directed the AO to re-examine the claim under Section 11, given the assessee's subsequent registration under Section 12A. 4. Treatment of Building Fund and Infrastructure Development Fund: The AO treated these funds as revenue receipts, not capital receipts, and added them to the income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete these additions, following the Tribunal's earlier decisions. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, as directed by the Karnataka High Court, to verify the utilization of these funds for construction purposes. 5. Treatment of Donations to Other Institutions: The AO disallowed donations made to non-approved institutions. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, relying on the Tribunal's earlier rulings that such donations are application of income for charitable purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's grounds on this issue. 6. Levy of Interest under Section 234B: The assessee contested the levy of interest under Section 234B, arguing that it presumed its income was exempt and thus did not estimate taxable income for advance tax. The Tribunal found this ground unsustainable, stating that exemption presumption cannot justify non-payment of advance tax, and upheld the levy as consequential. Separate Judgments: The Tribunal's judgment was consistent across the appeals and cross-objections for different assessment years, with the same issues and rulings applied. The appeals by the revenue and the assessee, as well as the cross-objections, were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions for re-examination by the AO where necessary. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on most issues, granting exemptions under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), recognizing the status as AJP, and treating donations as application of income for charitable purposes. The issues of building and infrastructure funds were remanded for fresh consideration, and the claim under Section 11 was directed for re-examination in light of new registration under Section 12A. The levy of interest under Section 234B was upheld as consequential.
|
