9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... air, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. B.Kumar Iyer, Superintendent(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that appellant have provided Commercial or Industrial Construction Services to M/s. Khare Tarkunde Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Nagpur as a sub contractor for construction of new cotton market development project under Technology mission at Agriculture Produce Market Committee(APMC) Daryapur, and Varud both of Amravati District. The show cause notice was issued contending that service provided by the appellant is classifiable as Commercial or Industrial Construction under Section 65(25B) of the Finance At, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. He submits that as per Hon ble High Court judgment in case of Agricultural produce Market Committee(supra), APMC is charitable organization, therefore construction done by the appellant is used by APMC being charitable organization, not liable to service tax. He further submits that there is no specific definition of chargeable trust is provided in the service tax law therefore for the purpose of term 'chargeable trust' judgment of income tax would be applicable as per Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd Vs. Commissioner[ 1999 (112) ELT 353 (S.C.)]. 3. On the other hand, Shri. B Kumar Iyer, Ld. Superintendent(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... market fund is to be expended only for the purposes mentioned in the Act. In support of their contention that APMC is a nonprofit organization Noticee relied on a judgment of Hon- Bench of Nagpur Tribunal in case of Agricultural Produce and Market Committee V/s Commissioner of Income Tax 3rd June 2005 (2006 100 1TD 1 Nag, 2006 283 ITR 178 Nag). In the given case it has been held that APMC is not profit organization. 3.9 Noticee discussed the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 to support their contention that the purpose of APMC is charitable. It is not the requirement of Section 12A or 12AA that the trust or institution should be registered with the Charity Commissioner. It was also pointed out that as per expln 1 to Section 13 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC); 4. Commr. of Agrl. IT v. Rubber Board ; 5. Director of IT (Exemption) v. Agri-Horticultural Society ; 6. U.P. Forest Corporation v. Dy. CTR; and 7. ITO v. Manav Hitkati Trust (1987) 28 TTJ (Del) 169: (1987) 20 ITD 42 (Del). 3.11 From the above referred case laws, Noticee submitted that the following principles, Ire required to be considered to treat an institution to be a charitable institution are: (i) The objects or the dominant objects of the trust or institution should be for the benefit of a section of community or a class identifiable by some common quality of public or impersonal nature. The object for being charitable need not be for the benefit of whole mankind. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
