Charitable trust retains Section 11 exemption despite honorarium payments and educational loan to sister trust

ITAT Chennai upheld exemption under Section 11 for a charitable trust formed in 1961. The tribunal dismissed revenue's challenge regarding honorarium payment to a trustee, following its earlier decision in favor of the assessee. Regarding loan payment of Rs. 70,25,780 to sister educational trust for college construction, the tribunal found no violation of Section 13(1)(c) as the loan was for charitable purposes and properly documented with invoices and payment details verified by AO per HC directions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue.
2. Violation of Section 13(1)(c) regarding honorarium payment.
3. Violation of Section 13(1)(d) regarding excess payment to sister trust.
4. Denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi).
5. Disallowance of depreciation on assets.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal by the Revenue:

The Tribunal noted that there was a delay of six days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. Upon considering the petition/affidavit, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned.

2. Violation of Section 13(1)(c) Regarding Honorarium Payment:

The Assessing Officer (AO) had denied the exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing a payment of Rs. 1,11,900/- to Ms. Meenakshi Sundararajan as a violation of Section 13(1)(c). The AO argued that the payment was made without any services being rendered. However, the Tribunal referred to the case of the same assessee for the Assessment Year 2010-11, where it was held that the payment was in compliance with the trust's mandatory rules and thus did not violate Section 13(1)(c). The CIT(A) and Tribunal both upheld this view, allowing the honorarium payment as an allowable expense.

3. Violation of Section 13(1)(d) Regarding Excess Payment to Sister Trust:

The AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 70,25,780/- shown as a loan receivable from Ganapathy Educational Trust, arguing that it violated Section 13(1)(d). The CIT(A) initially upheld this view. However, the High Court remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing that the amount given to another trust with similar objects should be considered as an application of funds rather than an investment. The AO, upon re-examination, denied the exemption again, but the CIT(A) overruled this, stating that the loan to the sister trust did not violate Section 13(1)(d) as it was for charitable purposes.

4. Denial of Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(vi):

The AO denied the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) on the grounds that the assessee was running a profitable venture, citing a substantial surplus. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld this denial, stating that the assessee did not have the necessary registration for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in "Aditanar Educational Institution vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax," to support the view that the exemption should be evaluated each year.

5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets:

The AO disallowed the depreciation claim of Rs. 97,90,776/-, arguing that the assets had already been claimed as an application of income. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. However, the High Court allowed the depreciation claim, citing the Supreme Court's decision in "CIT Vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation," which held that normal depreciation could be considered a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the assessee. The AO, upon re-examination, allowed the depreciation claim, and the Tribunal upheld this decision.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the honorarium payment and the loan to the sister trust as allowable expenses. The denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and the allowance of depreciation were also upheld. The order was pronounced on August 30, 2024.

---