2012 (4) TMI 375 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of assessee s claim for registration under section 12AA and approval under section 80G assessee s is running an institution called Preston International College as Trust Held that - Conducting courses and programme of the Distance Learning courses and running study centers for and on behalf of the University and sharing the fees collected from the students are in the nature of commercial activities and cannot be considered as charitable in nature - assessee s college is functioning as a coaching institute run on commercial lines Rendering education and medical care to a millionaire is not charity. Charity reflects the concern of a society in the upliftment - against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of applications for registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Rejection of petitions for approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the rejection of applications for registration under section 12AA and petitions for approval under section 80G by the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions). The Director found that the assessee was raising funds through publications and other means, which were considered as commercial activities falling outside the scope of charitable purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the first set of appeals as infructuous and upheld the rejection by the Director (paragraphs 2 and 3).

2. The assessee, a trust running an educational institution, was collecting fees from students for distance education programs in collaboration with universities. The Director held that these activities were commercial in nature and not charitable, leading to the rejection of registration under section 12AA and approval under section 80G. The Tribunal examined the contentions raised by the assessee, emphasizing that for an institution to be considered charitable, its activities must reflect a charitable dedication, serving the essential needs of the needy. As the assessee failed to demonstrate charitable services in running coaching centers, the rejection was deemed justified (paragraphs 4 to 15).

3. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's activities were remunerative, involving collecting fees for recognized centers in collaboration with universities. Since the assessee did not present evidence of charitable services rendered, the rejection by the Director was upheld, denying the benefits under sections 11 and 80G. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed (paragraph 16).