ITAT Upholds Exemption for Temple Construction as Charitable Activity

The ITAT upheld the assessee's entitlement to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, ruling that the construction of the temple was a charitable activity. The proviso to Section 2(15) was deemed inapplicable to the assessee's ancillary income-generating activities. The ITAT also dismissed the department's challenge to the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), emphasizing that no disallowance could be made under commercial principles when computing income under Section 11. The appeals by the department were both dismissed, with the judgments delivered on 3rd July 2015.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Application of Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act:

The department contested the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, a society registered under the AP Societies Registration Act and granted registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act as a charitable institution, filed its return of income declaring 'nil' income after claiming exemption under Section 11. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee was constructing a Jagannadha Temple and investing significant amounts in this construction, which the AO deemed not in accordance with the society's primary objects. The AO argued that the construction of the temple was not a charitable activity and denied the exemption under Section 11. The assessee countered by stating that the temple construction was integral to promoting Odisha culture, which was within its objects, and that the society continued to enjoy the benefit of registration under Section 12A. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's claim, referencing previous favorable decisions in the assessee's own case and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble AP High Court in CIT Vs. Social Services Centre, which considered the construction of a church as a charitable activity. The ITAT confirmed that the construction of the temple was a charitable activity and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant exemption under Section 11.

2. Application of Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act:

The AO also argued that the assessee's activities, such as letting out function halls and selling souvenirs, were commercial in nature, thus invoking the proviso to Section 2(15) to deny the exemption. The CIT(A) and the ITAT disagreed, stating that these activities were ancillary and incidental to the main charitable object of the society and that the income generated was used for charitable purposes. The ITAT referred to the dominant object test, emphasizing that the primary purpose of the assessee was charitable, and any incidental income-generating activities did not alter its charitable nature. The ITAT cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Indian Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. Director General of Income-tax (E), which clarified that the proviso to Section 2(15) should be interpreted in the context of the institution's dominant charitable purpose and not merely based on incidental income-generating activities.

3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act:

The department challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ITAT held that since the income of the assessee was to be computed under Section 11, no disallowance could be made under Section 40(a)(ia) by applying commercial principles. Consequently, this ground of the department was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The ITAT dismissed both appeals by the department, confirming that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11, and that the proviso to Section 2(15) did not apply to the assessee's incidental income-generating activities. Additionally, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted. The judgments were pronounced in the open court on 3rd July 2015.

---