2012 (5) TMI 204 - HC - Income Tax

Interpretation of Section 11(1)(a) - Application of income - treatment of payment of taxes under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 revenue contested taxes paid are not to be treated as application of income of the trust - Held that - In the case of a business undertaking held under trust, its income will be the income as shown in the accounts of the undertaking - the expenditure incurred by a charitable trust by way of payment of tax out of the current year s income has to be considered as application for charitable purposes because such payment has to be made to preserve the corpus, the existence of which is absolutely necessary for the trust - The issue whether the word income used in Section 11(1)(a) of the Act must be assigned the same meaning as the words total income as defined in Section 2(45) of the Act cannot be accepted as confirmed by circular No. 5 dated 19.06.1968 - the payment of taxes under the VDIS is to be deducted before arriving at the commercial income of the assessee-trust that is available for application to charitable purposes in favour of assessee. Expenditure incurred outside India on events/activities held in connection with the exhibition Held that - The provision as it existed after the amendment made in Section 11(1)(a) w.e.f. 1.4.1952 makes a reference to application or accumulation for application of the income of the trust to such religious or charitable purposes as relate to anything done within the taxable territories - even if relocate the words in India in the manner in which assessee suggests in the definition , it would make no difference to the -meaning to be ascribed to the group of words - the amount spent by the assessee-trust cannot be considered as application of the income of the trust in India - against assessee. Non Applicability of Section 28(iii) on trust - non-refundable admission fee from its members as well as annual subscription charges Held that - The annual subscription fees is a recurring receipt, receivable by the assessee-trust by mere efflux of time irrespective of whether any services are rendered or not to the members - what is contemplated in Section 28(iii) is the receipt of fees from particular members to whom specific services have been rendered by the trust - in the absence of any evidence to show that the assessee receives fees from the members for specific services rendered to them the Tribunal was correct in holding that the annual subscription fees was not assessable under the section - in favour of the assessee. Corpus donation received by the assessee Held that - The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the members who paid the one-time admission fee were aware that it can be spent by the assessee only for the purposes of acquiring a capital asset and, therefore, the amount must be held to be a corpus donation, not taxable as income - in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Payment of taxes under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) as application of income for charitable purposes.
2. Expenditure incurred outside India as application of income for charitable purposes.
3. Taxability of annual subscription fees under Section 28(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Taxability of corpus donations.
5. Deduction of provision for doubtful debts from the income of the trust.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Payment of Taxes under VDIS as Application of Income for Charitable Purposes:
The Tribunal held that taxes paid under VDIS should be treated as application of income of the trust, following precedents from various High Courts and a CBDT circular. The High Court agreed, noting that the income of the trust should be determined on commercial principles and that the payment of taxes is necessary to preserve the corpus of the trust. The Court concluded that the payment of taxes under VDIS is to be deducted before arriving at the commercial income of the trust available for application to charitable purposes.

2. Expenditure Incurred Outside India as Application of Income for Charitable Purposes:
The Tribunal interpreted the words "is applied to such purposes in India" in Section 11(1)(a) to mean that the purposes of the trust should be in India, but the application of income need not be in India. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the income of the trust should be applied in India to charitable purposes. It referred to the historical context and grammatical construction of the provision, concluding that the income must be applied in India to qualify for exemption. The Court held that the expenditure incurred outside India cannot be considered as application of income for charitable purposes in India.

3. Taxability of Annual Subscription Fees under Section 28(iii):
The Assessing Officer taxed the annual subscription fees under Section 28(iii), arguing that the assessee provided specific services to its members. The Tribunal, however, did not find evidence of specific services rendered in return for the fees. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, noting that the annual subscription fees were not linked to specific services but were paid to maintain membership. The Court concluded that the annual subscription fees were not taxable under Section 28(iii).

4. Taxability of Corpus Donations:
The Tribunal found that corpus donations received by the assessee were intended for acquiring capital assets and thus should be treated as corpus donations, not taxable as income. The High Court agreed, noting that this was a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arose.

5. Deduction of Provision for Doubtful Debts:
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of provision for doubtful debts from the income of the trust on commercial principles. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the income of the trust should be computed in accordance with commercial principles, and a bona fide provision for doubtful debts should be deducted. The Court framed and answered the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of the provision for doubtful debts.

Separate Judgments:
- The High Court delivered a single judgment addressing all the issues comprehensively.
- The Court framed and answered substantial questions of law for each issue, providing detailed reasoning and references to precedents and statutory provisions.

← Previous Next →