Home ›

Search Results For: 2(15)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: September 27, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 25, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/11 "Charitable Purpose": The fact that the carrying on of charitable activities results in a surplus does not mean that assessee exists for profit. “Profit” means that owners have a right to withdraw the surplus for any purpose including personal purpose. However, if the surplus is ploughed back into the same charitable activities, the assessee cannot be said to be carrying out commercial activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business. The fact that the assessee has dealings with, & share of profits from, BCCI (a commercial entity) does not affect its charitable status

It is not in dispute that the three Associations have not distributed any profits outside the organization. The profits, if any, are ploughed back into the very activities of promotion and development of the sport of cricket and, therefore, the assessees cannot be termed to be carrying out commercial activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business.(iii) It is not correct to say that as the assessees received share of income from the BCCI, their activities could be said to be the activities of the BCCI. Undoubtedly, the activities of the BCCI are commercial in nature. The activities of the BCCI is in the form of exhibition of sports and earn profit out of it.However, if the Associations host any international match once in a year or two at the behest of the BCCI, then the income of the Associations from the sale of tickets etc., in such circumstances, would not portray the character of commercial nature

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 12, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 21, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/11: Though the assessee is activity contributing towards the promotion and popularity of cricket, its activities are also concentrated for generation of revenue by exploiting the popularity of the game and towards monopolization and dominant control over cricket to the exclusion of others. The commercial exploitation of the popularity of the game and the property/infrastructure held by the assessee is not incidental to the main object but is one of the primary motives of the assessee (All imp judgements on 'charitable purpose' referred)

The assessee is regularly following commercial activity by commercially exploiting its property and rights to hold matches and thereby earning huge income, hence the said activity can not be said to be incidental activity rather the commercial exploitation of the match is one of the main activity of the assessee, hence, the case of the assessee ,in our view, for the year under consideration will not fall within the definition and scope of section 2(15) of the Act and thus the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. While holding so, we do not mean that the assessee’s activity is not at all for promotion of the game of cricket. No doubt, the assessee is also activity contributing towards the promotion and popularity of the cricket but at the same time its activities are also concentrated for generation and augmentation of the revenue by exploiting the popularity of the game and towards monopolisation and having dominant control over the cricket to the exclusion of others. What we want to convey is that the commercial exploitation of the popularity of the game and the property/infrastructure held by the assessee is not incidental to the main object but is apparently and inter alia one of the primary motives of the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 12A Charity Registration: Exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh levied upon trust for fraud in wrongly seeking exemption on basis that it is controlled & managed by the Govt. The ITAT is deemed to be a Civil Court and its proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of s. 193 & 228 & of the Indian Penal Code. Any attempt to play fraud on the ITAT by way of conveying wrong and false facts and pleadings is required to be strictly dealt with

We are further pained to note here that identical contentions as were raised by the representatives of the Trust before the lower authorities that the Trust is controlled and managed by the Government or that its funds and properties otherwise belong to the Government, have been raised by the counsel for the assessee Trust before us also and further that even otherwise, dissolution clause has been added vide the amended resolution. This, in our view, is a clear and visible attempt on behalf of the trust to mislead this Bench of the Tribunal by way of concealing the real and true facts that the Members of the Trust have, by not extending the term of Board of Governors, conveniently entrusted unto themselves the control and management of the Trust. Had the case of the Trust been not carefully examined, these important and relevant facts would have remained wrapped under the carpet, and the Trust could have managed to get the relief of exemption from taxation by presenting wrong and false facts

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 31, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 11: Entire law on what constitutes "advancement of objects of general public utility" so as to qualify as "charitable purpose" u/s 2(15) explained. Law also explained on the impact of carrying out incidental activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business in the course of actual carrying out of advancement of object of general public utility explained (All imp judgements referred)

To remove this anomaly, proper construction will be that the institution carrying out the object of advancement of general public utility which involve the incidental or ancillary activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business and generating income therefrom, the income to such an extent as is limited by the second proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act should be taken as exempt being treated as income from charitable purposes as per the relevant provisions of sections 2(15), section 10, section 11, section 12 or section 13, as the case may be and wherever applied. The other income which is not from the commercial activity, such as, by way of voluntary donations, contributions, grants or nominal registration fee etc. or otherwise will remain to be from charitable ITA No. 1382/Chd/2016- Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh 94 purposes and eligible for exemption under the relevant provisions. However, the income from activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business over the above limit prescribed from time to time as per the second proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, should be treated as income from the business activity and liable to be included in the total income. In this way, the receipts of incidental business income while carrying out the objects of advancement of general public utility, when these cross the limit prescribed u/s 2(15) of the Act, will not render such institute as non-charitable bringing into taxation its entire income including non-business income or even income from charitable activity itself including voluntary contributions and donations. Only the business income which will be over and above the prescribed limit will be subjected to taxation.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 24, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 12AA(3): The CIT is not entitled to withdraw s. 12A registration on the ground that the activities of the trust are no longer charitable after the insertion of the proviso to s. 2(15). The registration can be withdrawn only if a finding is given that the activities of the institution are not genuine or that the activities carried out are not in consonance with the object of the institution

It is apparent from the record that the Commissioner has invoked its powers under Section 12(AA)(3) of the Act. The said powers are circumscribed by the limitations imposed under Sub Section 3 of Section 12AA of the Act. The Commissioner, nowhere has given the finding that the activities of the Respondent institution are not genuine one or that the said activity carried out are not in consonance with the object of the institution. The Commissioner has merely relied on proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 15 of the Act, as it stood then

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/12AA: The activities of Banquet Hall Hiring, Hospitality (Restaurants) and Permit Room (Bar) are prima facie in the nature of carrying on trade, commerce, or business for consideration and are hit by the proviso to s. 2(15). If the receipts from these activities are in excess of the minimum prescribed threshold limit, the DIT is required to conduct detailed enquiry and examination as to the nexus between the activities and trade, commerce or business

In the light of the above observation and respectfully following the same, we are prima facie of the opinion that the activities of the assessee of Banquet Hall Hiring, Hospitality (Restaurants) and Permit Room (Bar) are in the nature of carrying on trade, commerce, or business for consideration, which are hit by proviso to Section 2(15) of 1961 Act. We further observe that the receipts from these activities, during the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year 2009-10, are far in excess of minimum prescribed threshold limit. This requires detailed enquiry and examination by the Ld. DIT(Exemption) as to the various activities undertaken by the assessee over a period of time and its nexus with activity of rendering of trade commerce or business as contemplated and mandated by amended Section 2(15) of 1961 Act read in conjunction with significant observations made in the above order dated 14-2-2017 in North Indian Association(supra). Thus, enquiry and examination by learned DIT(E) is further required to arrive at a conclusion whether activities of the assessee are genuine or not in context of Section 11 of the Act read with amended Section 2(15) of the Act and breach of threshold limit over a period of time

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/11: Impact of the amendment to the definition of "charitable purpose" in s. 2(15) by insertion of a proviso by the Finance Act, 2008 and whether it supersedes the verdicts in Loka Shikshana Trust 101 ITR 234 (SC), Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association 121 ITR 1 (SC) etc explained

If the legislature intended the latter part of the proviso to apply to the word “advancement” as well and not merely to the words “object of general public utility”, it would have worded the amendment entirely differently. The proviso would have expressly been made applicable to the advancement as well as to the object of general public utility. That the legislature did not do so is an indication that it accepted the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Section 2(15) as it originally stood and retained the effect of the section in that regard in the 2009 amendment. The ratio of the judgment in Surat Art Silk’s case (supra), in this regard, therefore, remains the same

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 16, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/12AA(3): The DIT has no jurisdiction to cancel registration of a charitable institution on the ground that it is carrying on commercial activities which are in breach of the amended definition of "charitable purpose" in s. 2(15). Registration can be cancelled only if the activities of the trust are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with its objects. This is clarified by Circular No.21 of 2016

The submission made on behalf of the Revenue that the Circular No.21 of 2016 would have only prospective effect in respect of Assessment made subsequent to the amendment under Section 2(15) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2016 is also not sustainable. The amendment in Section 2(15) of the Act brought about by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1st April, 2016, is essentially that where earlier the receipts in excess of Rs.25 lakhs on commercial activities would exclude it from the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ is now substituted by receipts from commercial activities in excess 20% of the total receipts of the institution. In the above view, Circular No.21 of 2016 directs the Officer of the Revenue not to cancel Registration only because the receipts on account of business are in excess of the limits in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act would also apply in the present case. The impugned order has held that cancellation of a Registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act, can only take place in case where the activities of trust or institution are not genuine and/or not carried on in accordance with its objects

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 19, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/ 11: If the predominant purpose is charitable, the earning of profit from an incidental activity like letting of property does not affect the charitable status. As the letting is a part of the educational activities, there is no obligation to maintain separate books u/s 11(4A). As per CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2008, the first proviso to s. 2(15) applies to the 'advancement of any other object of general public utility'

The revenue’s contention that the tribunal has overlooked the provisions of section 11(4A) is unfounded. We have noted above that the service charges received in respect of 6th and 7th floor were clearly on account of educational purpose. Letting out was incidental and not the principle activity of the assessee trust. Thus, in our opinion, section 11(4A) which require separate account to be maintained would not be attracted in view of our conclusion that the said amounts as received by the assessee for the assessment year have been received from educational activity which is the dominant activity of the assessee trust. In our opinion, if this be the case, separate books of accounts cannot be insisted upon as the said activity becomes part and parcel of the educational activities carried out by the assessee trust. In such a case, the benefit of exemption under section 11 (4A) cannot be denied. An interpretation as urged on behalf of the revenue would render nugatory the very spirit, rationale and the object of the exemption provisions making the same unworkable

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: September 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Even post insertion of proviso to s. 2 (15) but before 01.04.2016, s. 11 benefit cannot be denied to business activities carried by the trust in the course of actual carrying out of such advancement of any other object of general public utility. Trusts are entitled to carry out activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business etc as long as these activities are carried out in the course of actual carrying out of advancement of any other object of general public utility. On facts, activity of auctioning commercial plots for maximum revenue cannot be regarded as a profit-making exercise

This substitution of proviso to Section 2(15) may be viewed as representing a paradigm shift in the scope of the exclusion clause. The paradigm shift is this. So far as the scope of earlier provisos is concerned, the CBDT itself has, dealing with an assessee pursing “the advancement of any object of general pubic utility”, observed that “If such assessee is engaged in any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or renders any service in connection to trade, commerce or business, it would not be entitled to claim that its object is for charitable purposes” because “In such a case, the object of ‘general public utility’ will only be a mask or a device to hide the true purpose which is trade, commerce, or business or rendering of any service in relation to trade, commerce or business.” The advancement of any objects of general public utility and engagement in trade, commerce and business etc. were thus seen as mutually exclusive in the sense that either the assessee was pursuing the objects of general public utility or pursuing trade, commerce or business etc. in the garb of pursing the objects of general public utility

Read more ›