2022 (10) TMI 948 - SC - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - scope and amplitude of the definition charitable purpose - primary question which falls for consideration is the correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) charitable purpose includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility - Interpretation of the changed definition of charitable purpose (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act - Distinction between business held under Trust Section 11(4) and Trust carrying on business Section 11(4A) - HELD THAT - To summarise on the legal position on this - if a property is held under trust, and such property is a business, the case would fall under Section 11(4) and not under Section 11(4A) of the Act. Section 11(4A) of the Act, would apply only to a case where the business is not held under trust. There is a difference between a property or business held under trust and a business carried on by or on behalf of the trust. This distinction was recognized in Surat Art Silk 1979 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT which observed that if a business undertaking is held under trust for a charitable purpose, the income from it would be entitled to exemption under Section 11(1) of the Act. Pure charity in the sense that the performance of an activity without any consideration is not envisioned under the Act. If one keeps this in mind, what Section 2(15) emphasizes is that so long as a GPU s charity s object involves activities which also generates profits (incidental, or in other words, while actually carrying out the objectives of GPU, if some profit is generated), it can be granted exemption provided the quantitative limit (of not exceeding 20%) under second proviso to Section 2(15) for receipts from such profits, is adhered to. The insertion of Section 13(8)144, the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section 143(3) (all of which were inserted by Finance Act, 2012, but w.r.e.f. 01.04.2009), further reinforces the interpretation of this Court, of charitable purpose . These provisions, form the machinery to control the conditions under which income is exempt. The effect of the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) is to impose the same condition i.e., that that the trade, commerce or business activity or service relating to trade, business or commerce, should be part of the GPU s activities, to achieve its object of advancing general public utility. The other condition which is drawn in as part of the exemption condition, is that if such trading or commercial activity takes place the receipts should be confined to a prescribed percentage of the overall receipts. Section 13(8) too reinforces the same condition. In the opinion of this court, the change intended by Parliament through the amendment of Section 2(15) was sought to be emphasised and clarified by the amendment of Section 10(23C) and the insertion of Section 13(8). This was Parliaments emphatic way of saying that generally no commercial or business or trading activity ought to be engaged by GPU charities but that in the course of their functioning of carrying out activities of general public utility, they can in a limited manner do so, provided the receipts are within the limit spelt out in Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 2(15). General test under Section 2(15) - As clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself in any trade, commerce or business, or provide service in relation thereto for any consideration ( cess, or fee, or any other consideration ). In the course of achieving the object of general public utility, the concerned trust, society, or other such organization, can carry on trade, commerce or business or provide services in relation thereto for consideration, provided that (i) the activities of trade, commerce or business are connected ( actual carrying out inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2016) to the achievement of its objects of GPU; and (ii) the receipt from such business or commercial activity or service in relation thereto, does not exceed the quantified limit, as amended over the years (Rs. 10 lakhs w.e.f. 01.04.2009; then Rs. 25 lakhs w.e.f. 01.04.2012; and now 20% of total receipts of the previous year, w.e.f. 01.04.2016); Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for such an activity (advancing general public utility), which is on cost-basis or nominally above cost, cannot be considered to be trade, commerce, or business or any services in relation thereto. It is only when the charges are markedly or significantly above the cost incurred by the assessee in question, that they would fall within the mischief of cess, or fee, or any other consideration towards trade, commerce or business . In this regard, the Court has clarified through illustrations what kind of services or goods provided on cost or nominal basis would normally be excluded from the mischief of trade, commerce, or business, in the body of the judgment. Section 11(4A) must be interpreted harmoniously with Section 2(15), with which there is no conflict. Carrying out activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or service in relation to such activities, should be conducted in the course of achieving the GPU object, and the income, profit or surplus or gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 01.04.2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across the statutory provisions. Authorities, corporations, or bodies established by statute - In clause (b) of Section 10(46) of the IT Act, commercial has the same meaning as trade, commerce, business in Section 2(15) of the IT Act. Therefore, sums charged by such notified body, authority, Board, Trust or Commission (by whatever name called) will require similar consideration i.e., whether it is at cost with a nominal mark-up or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the mischief of commercial activity . However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether and to what extent, exemption can be awarded to bodies that are notified under Section 10(46). For the period 01.04.2003 to 01.04.2011, a statutory corporation could claim the benefit of Section 2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case 2007 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01.04.2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that it is set up for a charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act. Statutory regulators - The income and receipts of statutory regulatory bodies which are for instance, tasked with exclusive duties of prescribing curriculum, disciplining professionals and prescribing standards of professional conduct, are prima facie not business or commercial receipts. However, this is subject to the caveat that if the assessing authorities discern that certain kinds of activities carried out by such regulatory body involved charging of fees that are significantly higher than the cost incurred (with a nominal mark-up) or providing other facilities or services such as admission forms, coaching classes, registration processing fees, etc., at markedly higher prices, those would constitute commercial or business receipts. In that event, the overall quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15) (as amended from time to time) has to be complied with, if the regulatory body is to be considered as one with charitable purpose eligible for exemption under the IT Act. Like statutory authorities which regulate professions, statutory bodies which certify products (such as seeds) based on standards for qualification, etc. will also be treated similarly. Trade promotion bodies - Bodies involved in trade promotion (such as AEPC), or set up with the objects of purely advocating for, coordinating and assisting trading organisations, can be said to be involved in advancement of objects of general public utility. However, if such organisations provide additional services such as courses meant to skill personnel, providing private rental spaces in fairs or trade shows, consulting services, etc. then income or receipts from such activities, would be business or commercial in nature. In that event, the claim for tax exemption would have to be again subjected to the rigors of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act. Non-statutory bodies - In the present batch of cases, non-statutory bodies performing public functions, such as ERNET and NIXI are engaged in important public purposes. The materials on record show that fees or consideration charged by them for the purposes provided are nominal. In the circumstances, it is held that the said two assessees are driven by charitable purposes. However, the claims of such non-statutory organisations performing public functions, will have to be ascertained on a yearly basis, and the tax authorities must discern from the records, whether the fees charged are nominally above the cost, or have been increased to much higher levels. It is held that though GS1 India is in fact, involved in advancement of general public utility, its services are for the benefit of trade and business, from which they receive significantly high receipts. In the circumstances, its claim for exemption cannot succeed having regard to amended Section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal markup. Sports associations - So far as the state cricket associations are concerned (Saurashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Baroda, and Rajkot), this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires further scrutiny, in light of the discussion in paragraphs 228-238 of the judgment. Accordingly, a direction is issued that the AO shall adjudicate the matter afresh after issuing notice to the concerned assessees and examining the relevant material indicated in the previous paragraphs of this judgment. Furthermore, if any consequential order needs to be issued, the same shall be done and resulting actions, including assessment orders shall be passed in accordance with the law under relevant provisions of the IT Act. Private Trusts - So far as the appeal by assessee-Tribune Trust is concerned, it has been held that despite advancing general public utility, the Trust cannot benefit from exemption offered to entities covered by Section 2(15) as the records reveal that income received from advertisements, constituted business or commercial receipts. Consequently, the limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15) has to be adhered to for the Trust s claim of being as a charity eligible for exemption, to succeed. Therefore, despite differing reasoning, this court has held that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not call for interference. Application of interpretation - As noted that the conclusions arrived at by way of this judgment, neither precludes any of the assessees (whether statutory, or non-statutory) advancing objects of general public utility, from claiming exemption, nor the taxing authorities from denying exemption, in the future, if the receipts of the relevant year exceed the quantitative limit. The assessing authorities must on a yearly basis, scrutinize the record to discern whether the nature of the assessee s activities amount to trade, commerce or business based on its receipts and income (i.e., whether the amounts charged are on cost-basis, or significantly higher). If it is found that they are in the nature of trade, commerce or business , then it must be examined whether the quantified limit (as amended from time to time) in proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus disentitling them to exemption.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Interpretation of "charitable purpose" under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of tax exemptions to statutory corporations and authorities.
3. Treatment of income from trade, commerce, or business for charitable organizations.
4. Impact of amendments to Section 2(15) on various entities claiming charitable status.
5. Examination of specific entities' claims for tax exemption under the amended provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of "charitable purpose" under Section 2(15):

The judgment examines the definition of "charitable purpose" in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially after its amendment in 2008. The court notes that the amendment aimed to restrict the scope of activities that could be considered charitable, particularly those involving trade, commerce, or business. The court emphasizes that the term "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. However, the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce, or business for a fee or consideration.

2. Applicability of tax exemptions to statutory corporations and authorities:

The court discusses the applicability of tax exemptions to statutory corporations and authorities, such as housing boards and industrial development corporations. It highlights that these entities, which perform public functions and are established by statute, may be considered as advancing objects of general public utility. However, their activities must not be primarily commercial in nature. The court clarifies that statutory bodies involved in essential services like housing, water supply, and sewage management may be excluded from the mischief of business or commercial receipts if their charges are nominally above cost.

3. Treatment of income from trade, commerce, or business for charitable organizations:

The judgment addresses the treatment of income from trade, commerce, or business for charitable organizations. It states that while these organizations can engage in such activities to achieve their charitable objectives, the income from these activities should not exceed a specified limit. The court notes that the amended Section 2(15) sets a quantitative limit on the receipts from such activities, which should not exceed 20% of the total receipts of the organization.

4. Impact of amendments to Section 2(15) on various entities claiming charitable status:

The court examines the impact of the amendments to Section 2(15) on various entities claiming charitable status. It highlights that the amendments were intended to prevent misuse of the charitable status by organizations engaged in commercial activities. The court emphasizes that entities must demonstrate that their primary purpose is charitable and that any commercial activities are incidental to achieving their charitable objectives.

5. Examination of specific entities' claims for tax exemption under the amended provisions:

The judgment evaluates the claims for tax exemption by specific entities, including statutory corporations, trade promotion bodies, and private trusts. The court examines whether these entities' activities are aligned with the definition of "charitable purpose" under the amended Section 2(15). It considers factors such as the nature of the activities, the proportion of income from commercial activities, and the statutory provisions governing these entities. The court provides detailed analysis and rulings on the eligibility of various entities for tax exemption based on their compliance with the amended provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive interpretation of the amended Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, clarifying the conditions under which entities can claim charitable status and tax exemptions. It emphasizes the need for entities to demonstrate that their primary purpose is charitable and that any commercial activities are incidental and within the prescribed limits.