2016 (9) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules in favor of educational trust, restoring tax benefit under Section 11

SHREE KAMDAR EDUCATION TRUST Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER

SHREE KAMDAR EDUCATION TRUST Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in denying benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant-assesseeRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The primary question was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant-assessee, an educational trust.Facts and Background:- The assessee, a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, runs a school named Delhi Public School in Rajkot.- For the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee declared a total loss of Rs. 8,47,901/-. The Assessing Officer scrutinized this return and issued a notice focusing on the assessee’s claim of exemption under Section 11.- The Assessing Officer pointed out substantial payments made by the trust to the settler, trustees, and their relatives, allegedly violating Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. These payments included interest on deposits and lease rent for land taken on lease from them.- The Officer compared the school's fee structure with another school, St. Marry School, concluding that the trust was not engaged in charitable activities and proposed to deny the exemption.Assessee’s Defense:- The assessee argued that the lease rent of Rs. 1 per sq.ft. was below the prevailing market rate of Rs. 5 per sq.ft., evidenced by a lease deed with M/s. Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd.- Regarding the interest on borrowed funds, the trust needed Rs. 2 crores, and the trustees offered a loan at 9% interest per annum, lower than the bank's rate, without requiring security.Revenue’s Argument:- The Revenue contended that the trust was run for profit, with profits diverted to trustees and their relatives through rent and interest payments.Court’s Analysis:- The court noted that mere creation of surplus in running an educational institution does not deprive the trust of its charitable status, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Queen’s Educational Society vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Vivesvaraya Technological University vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.- The court found no evidence of surplus creation over seven years, with the trust showing a total deficit of Rs. 11.78 lakhs.- The court emphasized that Section 13(1)(c) does not prohibit normal transactions with trustees or relatives if payments are not excessive or unreasonable.Lease Rent:- The Revenue failed to prove the lease rent was excessive. The assessee demonstrated that the rent was significantly lower than the market rate, with the CIT(Appeals) incorrectly dismissing the comparison with Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd.Interest on Borrowed Funds:- The court found the interest rate of 9% per annum for unsecured loans reasonable compared to the bank’s 12.50% with security requirements. The CIT(Appeals) wrongly compared it to the fixed deposit rate trustees might receive from a bank.Conclusion:- The Tribunal and Revenue Authorities incorrectly analyzed the situation. The court reversed their judgments, answering the question in favor of the assessee, allowing the tax appeal, and restoring the benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.