2025 (4) TMI 910 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee entitled to deductions under sections 11 and 12 for charitable activities, additions quashed

M/s. Magadi Planning Authority Versus The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward – 3, Bangalore

The ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the assessee regarding entitlement for deduction under sections 11 and 12. Following precedent from a coordinate ... Entitlement for deduction u/s. 11 and 12 - charitable activity or not? - HELD THAT:- We have perused the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in [2025 (2) TMI 863 - ITAT BANGALORE] in which a similar dispute arose in respect of the A.Ys. 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 which were decided by the Coordinate Bench by following the earlier order passed in the case of Bangalore Development Authority [2019 (6) TMI 429 - ITAT BANGALORE] hold that the denial of exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act is unjustified. The assessee's activities are undeniably charitable, and the provisions of the Act support its exemption claim. The addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is, therefore, quashed. Thus, assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 11 and 12 of the Act. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the eligibility of the assessee, a local planning authority, for exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues include:Whether the activities of the assessee qualify as 'charitable purposes' under Section 2(15) of the Act.Whether the assessee's activities are in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, thereby disqualifying them from exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 due to the proviso to Section 2(15).Whether the assessee can be considered a local authority eligible for tax exemptions.Whether the collection of fees by the assessee should be regarded as income or as funds for specific purposes under Section 11(1)(d).Whether the lower authorities erred in not considering relevant precedents, including the Bangalore Development Authority case and the Supreme Court ruling in a similar matter.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Relevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework primarily involves Sections 11, 12, and 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 11 and 12 provide for exemptions on income derived from property held under trust for charitable or religious purposes. Section 2(15) defines 'charitable purpose' and includes relief of the poor, education, and advancement of any other object of general public utility. The proviso to Section 2(15) excludes activities involving trade, commerce, or business from the definition of charitable purposes if they exceed a specified threshold.The Tribunal referenced several precedents, including the Bangalore Development Authority case, which held that activities undertaken by statutory authorities in fulfillment of public duties do not constitute trade or business. The Supreme Court's decision in the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority case was also pivotal, clarifying that activities conducted on a cost or nominal basis do not fall within the scope of trade, commerce, or business.2. Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal interpreted the statutory provisions and precedents to determine that the assessee's activities do not fall within the scope of trade or business. The Tribunal emphasized that the primary purpose of the assessee's activities was the planned urban development and public welfare, not profit generation. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee operates under stringent government regulation, with all receipts and expenditures subject to government approval, further supporting the non-commercial nature of its activities.3. Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal relied on the financial statements of the assessee, which demonstrated significant expenditures on public welfare activities such as environmental preservation and development of lakes. The Tribunal also considered the statutory framework governing the assessee, which mandates that any surplus or assets revert to the State Government upon dissolution, underscoring the public welfare objective.4. Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the legal principles established in the cited precedents to the facts of the case, concluding that the assessee's activities align with the definition of 'charitable purposes' under Section 2(15). The Tribunal found that the collection of fees by the assessee was for specific statutory purposes and did not constitute income in the sense of trade or business.5. Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal addressed the arguments presented by the revenue authorities, which contended that the assessee's activities were commercial in nature due to the collection of fees and generation of surplus. The Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the intent and purpose of the activities, not the generation of surplus, determine their nature under the Act. The Tribunal also criticized the lower authorities for disregarding binding precedents and failing to consider the statutory framework governing the assessee.6. ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities are charitable in nature and not subject to the proviso to Section 2(15). Consequently, the assessee is entitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The Tribunal quashed the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeals filed by the assessee.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal's judgment contains several significant holdings:'Activities undertaken by a statutory authority in fulfillment of its public duties, even when they involve the collection of fees, do not fall within the scope of trade, commerce, or business as per the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act.''The imposition of income tax on the assessee's operations would contradict statutory mandate and undermine its role as a state instrumentality serving public welfare.''The AO's interpretation of the assessee's activities as trade or commerce is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.''Until and unless the Hon'ble High Court reverses the ITAT's findings, the ruling remains binding in cases with identical facts.'The Tribunal's final determination was that the assessee is entitled to the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.