TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment years; (ii) whether the amounts described as advance rent were in truth premium or salami and whether the transactions were leases or sales; (iii) whether the amounts appropriated towards the sinking fund were liable to be treated as the assessee's income as revenue receipt; (iv) whether the additional question for assessment year 1990-91 relating to annual value survived in view of the head under which the receipts were assessable.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment years.
Analysis: Registration under section 12A only enables an assessee to claim the benefit of sections 11 and 12; it does not by itself establish entitlement to exemption. The income must be derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and must be applied to such purposes. On the facts, the assessee's activities consisted of leasing commercial space and the record did not establish any real scientific research activity or application of income to the alleged charitable objects. The business was not carried on wholly for charitable purposes and the requirements of section 11(4A) were also not satisfied.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 11; the finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the amounts described as advance rent were in truth premium or salami and whether the transactions were leases or sales.
Analysis: The terms of the agreements, the surrounding circumstances, and the assessee's own contemporaneous report showed that the so-called advance rent was consideration for being let into possession and not mere periodical rent paid in advance. The leases were long-term leases and the arrangements transferred an interest in immovable property for the purpose of enjoyment, which also attracted the statutory concept of transfer. The agreements and the government leasehold structure were inconsistent with any sale by the assessee.
Conclusion: The receipts were premium or salami under a lease and not sale consideration; the issue was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iii): Whether the amounts appropriated towards the sinking fund were liable to be treated as the assessee's income as revenue receipt.
Analysis: The sinking fund was created under the lease terms to meet the assessee's obligations for common facilities and replacement of plant and machinery. The assessee retained control over the fund, the contributions were not diverted at source, and the amounts were to be used in discharge of the assessee's own obligations. The doctrine of diversion of income by overriding title therefore did not apply.
Conclusion: The sinking fund contributions formed part of the assessee's income and were revenue in nature; the finding was in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iv): Whether the additional question for assessment year 1990-91 relating to annual value survived in view of the head under which the receipts were assessable.
Analysis: After the remand report, the Tribunal itself treated the consideration from the leasing activity as assessable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". In that view, the question whether annual value should be based on standard rent or actual rent under the house property provisions did not survive for adjudication.
Conclusion: The additional question did not call for a separate fiscal determination and was answered in favour of the assessee only to the extent that it was rendered academic.
Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of with the principal issues decided against the assessee, while the additional question was rendered academic in view of the business-income treatment of the receipts.
Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under sections 11 and 12 is available only where the income is from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes and is actually applied to such purposes, and long-term lease receipts described as advance rent may be treated as premium and taxed as income where the substance of the transaction and the assessee's own conduct show consideration for being let into possession rather than mere rent.
TaxTMI 
