2013 (9) TMI 333 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 10(23)(v) / 10(23C)(iiiad) Nature of Society Educational institution - Exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) Held that - If the donations were received compulsorily for admission of students, the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s. 10(23C) or u/s. 11 of the IT Act. Since the lower authorities were not examined the collection of capitation fees in this case, in our opinion, the matter requires to be examined by the assessing officer whether the assessee is collecting the capitation fees from students or not and it is necessary for bringing the actual facts on record for deciding the issue effectively. - Following the decision in Vasavi Academy of Education (2010 (1) TMI 1094 - ITAT HYDERABAD), matter remanded back.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23)(c)(via) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Determination of the primary purpose of the society.
3. Impact of multiple objectives on claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).
4. Likelihood and capacity to engage in non-educational activities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Exemption under Section 10(23)(c)(via) of the Act:
The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to obtain mandatory approval under Section 10(23)(c)(via) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, noted that the issue should be set aside to the file of the assessing officer, consistent with previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal cited cases like Agarwal Siksha Samithi and Vasavi Academy of Education, which directed the assessing officer to re-examine the issue with certain directions.

2. Determination of the Primary Purpose of the Society:
The Revenue argued that the society was not held solely for educational purposes. The assessee countered by stating that the primary objective was educational, supported by several Supreme Court rulings. Notably, in CIT Vs Andhra Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court held that if the dominant purpose is charitable, ancillary objectives do not affect its charitable nature. Similarly, in Additional CIT Vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, the dominant object test was applied to determine the charitable purpose.

3. Impact of Multiple Objectives on Claiming Exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad):
The Revenue claimed that non-educational purposes barred the exemption. The assessee argued that multiple objectives do not negate the primary educational purpose, referencing Supreme Court cases like CIT Vs Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce & Industry, which upheld the dominant purpose test. The Tribunal agreed that the primary objective of the society was educational, and other objectives were ancillary.

4. Likelihood and Capacity to Engage in Non-Educational Activities:
The Revenue suggested that the society had the capacity to engage in non-educational activities. The Tribunal noted that the actual activities during the year were solely educational, aligning with the rulings in cases like CIT Vs Vidya Vikas Vihar and CIT Vs Geetha Bhavan Trust. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption should be evaluated annually based on actual activities, as established in Aditanar Educational Institution Vs Additional CIT.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and directed the assessing officer to reconsider the entire issue, following the Supreme Court's judgments in T.M.A.Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy of Education. The assessing officer was instructed to verify if any capitation fees were collected and to re-decide the matter in accordance with the law, providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →