9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 643 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) r.w.s. 11 - application of income - refused to allow the assessee s depreciation claim on the capital expenditure - invoking the provisions of sections 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) - honorarium payments made to specified person - Held that - when the assessee makes huge profits year after year the findings recorded by the lower authorities that the assessee is running a profitable venture during the impugned years is justified and hence the corresponding grounds of the assessee are dismissed for both the years. Further there is a clear violation u/s. 11(1)(c)/11(1)(d) rw.s.11(5). Therefore the provisions of Section 11 become in-operative and the surplus gained by the Trust for the year therefore needed to be brought to taxation and accordingly assessed the assessee s income. When the assessee s activities or the purposes are considered as existing for purposes of profit its claim u/s 11 that it is existing for charitable purposes within the scope of section 2(15) of the Act also fails both the ays. Thus when the assessee is not entitled for the benefit u/s 11 all its other claims u/s 11 are not allowable and hence they become academic and hence not dealt with .
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi). 2. Amount parked with a sister concern. 3. Denial of exemption under Section 11. 4. Disallowance of honorarium payments under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2), and 13(3). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi): The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment years (AYs) 2011-12 and 2012-13, citing that the assessee had a substantial percentage of surplus ranging from 30% to 42%, indicating that the institution was running a profitable venture. This decision was based on the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT), who had also denied the exemption for AY 2013-14. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this decision, stating that the assessee did not enjoy the exemption due to the lack of registration granted by the CCIT. The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the lower authorities, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Aditanar Educational Institution vs Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax and others, which held that the availability of the exemption should be evaluated each year to determine whether the institution existed solely for educational purposes and not for profit. The Tribunal dismissed the corresponding grounds of the assessee for both AYs. 2. Amount Parked with Sister Concern: The AO found that the assessee had received ?3,82,84,422 from Ganapathy Educational Trust and paid back ?4,53,10,202, resulting in an excess payment of ?70,25,780. The AO held that this excess amount was not received until 26.03.2012 and was not in the nature of an investment as per Section 11(5), thus violating Sections 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(d). The CIT(A) upheld this view, stating that the differential excess amount was loaned to the sister trust without adequate security or interest, violating Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 11(5) and Section 13(2)(a). The Tribunal found no substance in the assessee's submissions and dismissed the corresponding grounds for this AY. 3. Denial of Exemption under Section 11: The AO denied the exemption under Section 11 for AY 2012-13, stating that Section 13(8) prohibits the applicability of Sections 11 and 12 to any income of the Trust. The AO held that the assessee was not undertaking any charitable activity within the scope of Section 2(15) of the Act, as the assessee was running a profitable venture. This finding was not challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal held that when the assessee's activities are considered for profit, its claim under Section 11 fails for both AYs. Therefore, all other claims under Section 11 were not allowable and became academic. 4. Disallowance of Honorarium Payments under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2), and 13(3): The AO disallowed payments made to Ms. Meenakshi Sundararajan, the wife of the founder of the trust, under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2), and 13(3) for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The CIT(A) allowed the appeals, relying on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's case for AY 2010-11, which held that the payment was in compliance with a mandatory term of the trust. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the facts were almost identical and recurring for these AYs. Furthermore, even if the exemption under Section 11 was denied, the expenditure was allowable under Section 37, as the income would be assessed under Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals regarding the denial of exemptions under Sections 10(23C)(vi) and 11, as well as the issue of the amount parked with the sister concern. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the disallowance of honorarium payments, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The order was pronounced on June 22, 2018, in Chennai.
|
