2008 (2) TMI 546 - HC - Income Tax

Charitable institution exemption claimed - whether the appellant was entitled to exemption on the ground of mutuality? In other words the claim is that the appellant s benefit of the floor charges collected from members goes back to the same members and so much so based on principles of mutuality appellant s income is entitled to exemption. The Tribunal has found that the appellant was not giving any benefit to its members and floor charges were collected pertaining to trade of shares on behalf of outsiders by the members Therefore the claim of mutuality was turned down by the Tribunal. - Petitioner s institution does not qualify for exemption by virtue of the bar contained in section 11(4A) - Tribunal found that the appellant comes within the mischief of section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act we do not find any ground to interfere with Tribunal s order. Moreover since disallowance of exemption is based on findings of facts there is no substantial question of law arising put of the Tribunal s order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Income-tax exemption claimed by the appellant.
2. Entitlement to exemption based on the principle of mutuality.
3. Claim of exemption as a charitable institution under section 12A of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order confirming the disallowance of Income-tax exemption claimed by the appellant. The main source of income for the appellant was floor charges collected for allowing the use of space and facilities for trading in shares/stock. Although the appellant asserted that only its members were permitted to trade in shares/stock, there was no documentary evidence to support this claim as the records were destroyed. The Tribunal, however, accepted the contention that share trading was limited to members. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was based on facts and dismissed the Income-tax Appeal.

2. The issue raised was whether the appellant was entitled to exemption based on the principle of mutuality. The appellant argued that the floor charges collected from members were returned to the same members, thus qualifying for exemption. However, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not provide any benefit to its members, as the floor charges were collected for trading on behalf of outsiders. Consequently, the claim of mutuality was rejected by the Tribunal. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the findings on facts did not support the principle of mutuality, and there was no legal basis to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

3. The appellant also claimed exemption as a charitable institution under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. However, the court noted that the institution did not meet the criteria for exemption under section 11(4A) of the Act. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the appellant fell within the scope of section 11(4A), disqualifying it from exemption. As the disallowance of exemption was based on factual findings, the court concluded that there was no substantial legal question arising from the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal regarding the claim of exemption as a charitable institution.