2019 (10) TMI 305 - AT - Income Tax

Charitable Trust Granted Tax Exemptions on Investments and Income

The Tribunal held that the charitable trust did not violate Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act as the investments in Tata Group ... Exemption u/s 11 - violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) - HELD THAT:- Assessee's shareholding in the four companies even if held prior to 1st June, 1973 would have been violative of section 13(2)(h) if any of its trustees [or any other person referred to in sub-section (3)] held shares in the four companies carrying more than 20% voting power. In the course of the proceedings, the Annual Reports of all four companies for the F.Y. 2011-12 were submitted. Reference was made to the schedule containing disclosure of the shareholders holding more than 5% equity shares of the company and it was pointed out that neither Mr. Ratan N. Tata, nor any other persons referred to in sub-section (3) held more than 5% equity/voting power in any of the four companies. The question of holding shares carrying more than 20% voting power in the companies does not arise. Being a chairman in a company does not amount to holding a 'substantial interest' therein in terms of the clear mandate of Explanation 3 to section 13 of the Act. Hence, the assessee has not violated the provision of section 13(2)(h) of the Act and hence, on both grounds assessee succeeds. Assessee trust has violated section 13(3)(b) - Tata Sons Ltd. has not made any contribution to the assessee, let alone contributing a sum in excess of ₹ 50,000/-. In the course of the assessment proceedings, no question was ever asked nor was any detail called for in this regard by the AO. Hence, I am of the view that this observation is factually incorrect and reversed. This additional ground is decided in favour of assessee. Exemption under section 11 of the Act is not to he denied to the entire income of the assessee. However, as held that the assessee in the present case has not violated any part of section 13 Allowance of carry forward deficit on account of excess expenditure while granting benefit under of section 11 - We allow the carry forward of the ‘deficit’ and dismiss this issue of revenue’s appeal. Issues Involved:1. Violation of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act.2. Exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.3. Allowance of exemption under Section 10(34) and 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.4. Carry forward of deficit on account of excess expenditure.Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax ActThe primary issue was whether the assessee, a registered charitable trust, violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) by investing in shares of Tata Group companies. The AO concluded that such investments violated Section 13(1)(d), leading to the forfeiture of exemptions under Sections 11 and 12. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting that the trust had invested in prohibited modes of investment as per Section 13(1)(d). However, the Tribunal found that the investments were made prior to 01.06.1973 and were part of the corpus, thus falling under the proviso to Section 13(1)(d)(iii). Therefore, the trust did not violate Section 13(1)(d) or 13(2)(h).2. Exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax ActThe AO and CIT(A) held that due to the violation of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h), the trust's income was taxable at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164. The Tribunal, however, noted that the investments were compliant under the proviso to Section 13(1)(d)(iii) and thus, the trust was entitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that even if there was a violation, only the income from such investments would lose exemption, not the entire income of the trust.3. Allowance of Exemption under Section 10(34) and 10(38) of the Income Tax ActThe CIT(A) allowed the exemption of dividend income under Section 10(34) and long-term capital gains under Section 10(38), relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Jasubhai Foundation. The Tribunal upheld this, noting that the AO's view that the entire income becomes taxable was incorrect. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's dismissal of the department's SLP in the case of Working Women's Forum, which supported the view that only the income from non-compliant investments should be taxed.4. Carry Forward of Deficit on Account of Excess ExpenditureThe CIT(A) allowed the carry forward of the deficit, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. The Tribunal upheld this, noting that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Subros Educational Society, which allowed the carry forward of excess expenditure. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming that the assessee could carry forward the deficit for future application.ConclusionThe Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not violate Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h), and thus, was entitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of exemptions under Sections 10(34) and 10(38), and the carry forward of the deficit. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.