2000 (3) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee's tax exemption claim under Income-tax Act

The Tribunal upheld the assessee's entitlement to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as its activities were deemed charitable and ... Exemption, Charitable Purposes, Charitable Trust Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Loss of exemption due to contravention mentioned in section 13(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Summary:Issue 1: Entitlement to Exemption u/s 11The primary contention from the Revenue was that the assessee did not have a restriction or obligation to spend money exclusively on charity, and thus, the benefit of section 11 was denied. The Tribunal, however, found that the objects of the assessee were charitable in nature and satisfied the definition of 'charitable purpose' u/s 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's activities facilitated the export of diamonds, earning valuable foreign exchange, which was an object of general public utility. The Tribunal also highlighted that the income was applied solely for the promotion of its objects, with no portion paid as dividend, bonus, or profit to its members. The Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 was upheld, confirming that the assessee's activities were charitable and the application of income was for such purposes. Thus, the first point was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.Issue 2: Loss of Exemption due to Contravention u/s 13(2)(a)The second issue concerned whether the assessee lost its exemption by giving Rs. 70 lakhs to Bharat Shah, a member of the petitioner-bourse, and if this constituted a contravention u/s 13(2)(a). The Tribunal found that the amount was given to Bharat Shah to negotiate on behalf of the assessee for acquiring additional space in Diamond Village, and not as a loan. The Tribunal concluded that Bharat Shah was neither a founder nor a trustee, and thus did not fall under section 13(3)(a) or section 13(3)(c). The amount was returned to the assessee, and there was no lending of money. Therefore, section 13(2)(a) did not apply, and the exemption was not lost. The Tribunal's findings were upheld, and the second point was answered in favor of the assessee.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.