9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1131 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 11 - commercial activity or not - Charitable Trust (AOP) and is engaged in running of a hospital and giving medical relief. - Held that - The issue has already been decided in favor of assessee in 2015 (4) TMI 801 - ITAT PUNE - CIT(A) has followed the principles of judicial discipline in compliance with the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case. - Decided against the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act. 2. Alleged violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of Exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act The primary issue is whether the assessee, a charitable trust engaged in running a hospital and providing medical relief, is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) opined that the trust's activities were commercial in nature, involving trade or commerce, and thus did not qualify as charitable under section 2(15) of the Act. The AO highlighted that the trust collected significant amounts from IPD/OPD patients and paid substantial consultancy fees to Dr. B.E. Kandekar, indicating a profit motive. Consequently, the AO assessed the trust's income at ?1,64,83,400/- instead of the Nil income declared by the trust. However, the CIT(A) allowed the exemption claim, relying on decisions from previous assessment years (2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11), which were affirmed by the ITAT, Pune. The CIT(A) found that the facts and circumstances of the current assessment year were identical to those of the previous years, and no new evidence was presented by the AO to justify the denial of exemption. Thus, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the exemption under section 11. Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the I.T. Act The second issue pertains to the alleged violation of section 13(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, which deals with the misuse of trust property or income for the benefit of interested parties. The AO contended that Dr. B.E. Kandekar, the managing trustee, diverted the trust's income for his private gain by using the trust's infrastructure and receiving a disproportionately high consultancy fee. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) dismissed these allegations, again relying on previous decisions. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the trust's activities fell within the definition of "charitable purposes" under section 2(15) of the Act. The ITAT noted that the trust's predominant object was to provide medical relief, and any incidental profit did not disqualify it from being a charitable institution. The ITAT referenced various legal precedents, including CBDT Circular No. 11 and judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts, which supported the view that incidental profits do not negate the charitable nature of an institution. The ITAT also addressed the AO's concerns about the consultancy fees paid to Dr. Kandekar. It found that the fees were reasonable considering the revenue generated by his services, which constituted a significant portion of the trust's total receipts. The ITAT concluded that there was no evidence of unreasonable payments or misuse of trust property, and therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) were not violated. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The ITAT found no merit in the AO's allegations of commercial activities or violation of section 13(1)(c), affirming that the trust's activities were genuinely charitable and compliant with the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act.
|
