9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 857 - AT - Income TaxBenefit of exemption u/s. 11 - AO held that the activities of the assessee falls within the limb of any other objects of general public utility - activities of the assessee are in the nature of trade, commerce or business, since they are in receipt of fee/cess from their activity - assessee engaged in the promotion and upliftment of the game of cricket in the State of Kerala and received ₹ 18.63 crores from BCCI as contribution - Held that - Perusal of the objects of the Society that it is doing activities to promote the game of cricket in the State of Kerala and to arrange for coaches for the players, to train and maintain panel of umpires and to do such acts for the furtherance of the game of cricket. The income and the property of the assessee-Society shall be applied solely for the promotion of the objects of the Society and no portion of such income shall be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend or otherwise. According to the CIT(A), this makes it amply clear that the Society has been established in order to popularize the game of cricket in the State of Kerala and provide and strengthen the players with competitive skills. It is, further, held by the CIT(A) that the source of funds for the relevant assessment year is only the grant received from the BCCI, and the interest earned on deposits of surplus amount (past year s surplus). It cannot be stated that the assessee was doing any activity in the nature of business, trade or commerce. In other words, the assessee is not driven by any profit motive, on the contrary its primary objective is only to promote the game of cricket in the State of Kerala. Thus we hold that the activity of the assessee is not hit by the proviso to sub-section (15) of section 2 of the Act. The receipts from BCCI are not in the nature of trade, business or commerce and consequently the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was not applicable.The assessee is an affiliate of the Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI in short) and is the body representing cricketing activities in Kerala. The assessee carries out various activities for the sole purpose of development of the game of cricket in Kerala. The assessee is also not providing any service to any trade, commerce or Industry. The assessee is not created for earning profit as its motive and object of the assessee is towards the uplifment of game of cricket in the state of Kerala. The assessee is not driven with any profit motive. we conclude that the assessee s activities are charitable and is not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and consequently the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. Prepaid expenses disallowed - Held that - No details were placed before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A) as regards the claim of pre-paid expenses of ₹ 18,55,697/-. Even before us, no details are provided and, hence, the disallowance made by the Income Tax authorities is confirmed. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance u/s. 40a(ia) - non deduction of tds on fee given to Coaches - Held that - Admittedly, the above payments were made to the coaches without making any TDS, thereby violating the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act and, hence, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Income Tax authorities and we confirm the same.- Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. 2. Condonation of delay in filing the Cross Objection by the assessee. 3. Whether the activities of the assessee constitute "charitable purpose" under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. 5. Disallowance of pre-paid expenses amounting to ?18,55,697. 6. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) amounting to ?16,65,453. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal by the Revenue: The Revenue filed the appeal with a delay of 224 days, citing the revision of jurisdiction and the creation of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Kochi, as the reasons. The Tribunal condoned the delay, referencing judicial pronouncements that advocate a liberal approach in such matters, particularly when substantial justice is at stake. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed within a reasonable period of 75 days from the date of the jurisdiction revision. 2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Cross Objection by the Assessee: The assessee filed the Cross Objection with a delay of 10 days. The Tribunal condoned this delay as well, citing sufficient cause shown by the assessee and noting that no latches could be attributed to the assessee-society. 3. Whether the Activities of the Assessee Constitute "Charitable Purpose" under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act: The Tribunal examined whether the assessee's activities fell under the amended definition of "charitable purpose," which excludes activities involving trade, commerce, or business if receipts exceed ?25 lakhs. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities, primarily promoting and regulating cricket in Kerala, did not constitute trade, commerce, or business. The Tribunal cited several judicial pronouncements to support this view, emphasizing that the assessee's activities were not profit-driven but aimed at promoting cricket. 4. Whether the Assessee is Entitled to Exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee's activities are charitable and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal noted that the receipts from BCCI were not in the nature of trade, business, or commerce but were contributions for promoting cricket. The Tribunal referenced multiple judicial pronouncements to conclude that the assessee's activities were charitable and eligible for exemption under Section 11. 5. Disallowance of Pre-paid Expenses Amounting to ?18,55,697: The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of pre-paid expenses, noting that the assessee failed to provide details to substantiate the claim before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), or the Tribunal. 6. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) Amounting to ?16,65,453: The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for payments made to coaches without TDS. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to comply with TDS provisions, thus justifying the disallowance. Conclusion: Both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the need for substantial justice over technicalities.
|
