9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 63 - HC - Income TaxRejection of application for recognition u/s 80G(5) Whether the Trust had failed to spent 85 per cent of the amount towards the objects of the Trust - Held that - The similar matter has been decided in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shree Govindbhai Jethalal Nathavani Charitable Trust 2014 (8) TMI 561 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - At the time of granting approval u/s 80G of the Act, what is to be examined is the object of the trust and so far as the aspect of income is concerned, same can be very well examined by the AO at the time of framing assessment - the assessee-Trust was refused recognition only on the ground that it had not spent 85 per cent of the amount towards the objects of the Trust the Tribunal relied upon CIT VS. SURYA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST 2011 (10) TMI 47 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that at the stage of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, the extent and nature of activities are not required to be examined and the same is required to be examined in assessment proceedings - the Tribunal committed no jurisdictional error in issuing direction to grant recognition to the Trust u/s 80G(5) Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the ITAT is justified in law as well as on facts in directing recognition under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act to the assessee Trust? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Justification of ITAT's Direction for Recognition under Section 80G(5) 1. Background and Procedural History: - The Respondent-Trust applied for recognition under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the appellant on the grounds of not spending 85% of its income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. - The Respondent-Trust's appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was dismissed, leading to an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which ruled in favor of the Respondent-Trust. - The appellant-Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision in the High Court. 2. Legal Question: - The primary legal question is whether the ITAT was justified in directing the recognition under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act to the assessee Trust, despite the Trust not meeting the 85% expenditure requirement. 3. Precedent and Legal Reasoning: - The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Tax Appeal No. 306 of 2014, which dealt with a similar issue. - The Court noted that the main object of the Trust, as per its deed, included educational, social activities, and medical purposes. - The Court emphasized that the inquiry for recognition under Section 80G(5) should be limited to whether the institution satisfies the prescribed conditions of Section 80G, without delving into the actual application of income, which is the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) during assessment. 4. Relevant Case Law: - The Court cited the Division Bench's decision in the case of N.N. Desai Charitable Trust, which held that the inquiry for certification under Section 80G should focus on whether the institution meets the prescribed conditions and not on the actual expenditure of income in past periods. - The Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in "CIT vs. Surya Educational & Charitable Trust" was also referenced, which held that the extent and nature of activities of a trust are to be examined during assessment proceedings and not at the stage of registration under Section 12AA. 5. Court's Conclusion: - The Court concluded that the ITAT did not commit any error in quashing the order passed by the Commissioner and directing the grant of recognition under Section 80G(5). - It reiterated that the object of the Trust should be the focus during the approval process, and the actual expenditure of income should be examined by the AO during assessment. - The Court dismissed the appellant's argument that the decision in Tax Appeal No. 306 of 2014 would not apply to the present case, affirming that the Tribunal's direction was consistent with established legal principles. 6. Final Judgment: - The issue was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. - The appeal was dismissed as being without merit, with no order as to costs.
|
