2018 (4) TMI 789 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee society's charitable status upheld, exemptions confirmed, and deductions allowed under Income Tax Act.

Dy. CIT (E) New Delhi Versus Indian Society of The Church Jesus Christ of Latter Saints And Vice-Versa

The Tribunal upheld the assessee society's exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, confirming its charitable status benefiting the general ... Benefit of exemption under section 11 denied - whether activities of the assessee are primarily of religious nature and in clear violation of section 3(1)(b) of the I.T.Act? - not using its funds for public benefit but rather for the benefit of specified persons under Section 13(3) - Held that:- As found in assessee's own case [2017 (9) TMI 532 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that the activities of the Assessee Society, though both religious and charitable, were not exclusively meant for one particular religious community. It was, therefore, rightly not denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.2. Applicability of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.3. Deduction of aggregate expenditure incurred by the Society.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act:The primary issue revolved around whether the assessee, a registered society, was eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had been enjoying this exemption since its inception. However, for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the exemption was denied on the grounds that the society's activities were not for the benefit of the general public but for a particular religious community. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decision for the assessment year 2009-10, reiterated that the society was a charitable organization registered under Section 12AA and had not undergone any change in its main objectives. The Tribunal emphasized that the society's activities were for the public at large and not restricted to any particular religious community, thus upholding the exemption under Section 11.2. Applicability of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act:The Revenue argued that the society's activities were primarily religious in nature, violating Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, which disallows exemption if a trust is established for the benefit of a particular religious community. The Tribunal referred to its previous rulings and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat, which clarified that trusts with mixed charitable and religious purposes are eligible for exemption if their activities benefit the general public and not just a specific religious community. The Tribunal noted that the society's activities, such as health camps, educational programs, and community welfare, were open to the public without any religious restrictions, thus Section 13(1)(b) was not applicable.3. Deduction of Aggregate Expenditure Incurred by the Society:The Revenue contested the allowance of substantial expenditures incurred by the society, arguing that these should be assessed as the society's income. The Tribunal, however, found that the expenditures were incurred towards fulfilling the society's objectives and should be considered while computing the income in a commercial sense. The Tribunal referenced the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Hindustan Welfare Trust v. Director of Income Tax, which stated that real income, after deducting expenditures, should be considered for the purpose of exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the deduction of the expenditures, affirming that they were justified and necessary for the society's charitable activities.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the cross-objections filed by the assessee for both assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its previous rulings and supported by the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal concluded that the society was entitled to exemption under Section 11, was not in violation of Section 13(1)(b), and the expenditures incurred were legitimate and deductible.