9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 728 - AT - Income TaxExemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act - denial of exemption alleged that assessee violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the I.T. Act since the assessee trust had given loans Held that - Assessee while giving the impugned loan to another society did not violate the provisions of section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) of the I.T. Act as the loan was neither an investment nor a deposit - AO never disputed this fact that the assessee as well as Ram Lakhan Shiksha Samiti i.e., the society, who received the loan, were having similar objects, therefore, the temporary loan was given by the assessee to another society having similar object and nothing is brought on recorded by the AO that the said loan was out of the accumulated surplus of the year under consideration set apart - appeal is allowed Decision in DIT v. Acme Educational Society 2010 (7) TMI 159 - DELHI HIGH COURT followed.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Interpretation and application of Section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Classification of loans given by a charitable trust as investments or deposits. 4. Compliance with Section 11(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. Impact of non-registration of the recipient society under Section 12AA at the time of loan disbursement. Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary grievance of the assessee was the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 by the Assessing Officer (AO), which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The AO's decision was based on the alleged violation of Section 13(1)(d) due to loans given to Ram Lakhan Shiksha Samiti and Subhash Degree College. 2. Interpretation and Application of Section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The AO held that the loans given by the assessee constituted a violation of Section 13(1)(d), which restricts investments or deposits not specified under Section 11(5). The assessee contended that the loans were neither investments nor deposits, and thus did not violate Section 13(1)(d). The AO's reliance on the Kerala High Court judgment in Mundakapdam Mandiram's Society v. CIT was deemed inapplicable as that case involved a deposit, not a loan. 3. Classification of Loans Given by a Charitable Trust as Investments or Deposits: The assessee argued that loans are distinct from investments or deposits. This argument was supported by various judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Madras High Court in AN Shamsudeen v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court in Baidya Nath Plastic Industries (P.) Ltd. v. K.L. Anand, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Motilal Subhash Kumar Jain. These cases established that loans do not equate to deposits or investments. 4. Compliance with Section 11(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The AO asserted that the loans given were from funds that should have been invested as per Section 11(5). The assessee countered that the loans were given from general reserves and not from funds set apart under Section 11(2). The AO's observation that the loans were given out of accumulated balances, including funds under Section 11(2), was challenged by the assessee, who provided evidence of compliance with Section 11(2) and proper application of income. 5. Impact of Non-Registration of the Recipient Society under Section 12AA at the Time of Loan Disbursement: The AO noted that Ram Lakhan Shiksha Samiti was not registered under Section 12AA when the loan was given. The assessee argued that the recipient society's subsequent registration and its engagement in charitable activities should be considered. The Delhi ITAT in DDIT (Exemption) v. Pariwar Sewa Sansthan supported the view that loans to similarly purposed charitable societies do not violate Section 13(1)(d). Conclusion: The tribunal found that the AO's invocation of Section 13(1)(d) was not justified as the loans were neither investments nor deposits. The assessee's actions did not violate the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5). The tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency, noting that no disallowance was made in previous or subsequent years for similar transactions. The appeal was allowed, directing the AO to grant the exemption under Section 11. Result: The appeal was allowed, and the assessee was granted the exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
