Diversion by Overriding Title: tied grants earmarked for foreign collaborators excluded from assessee's income, limiting disallowance.

The note addresses whether NIH project sub-grants remitted to a US university are applications of income for a tied charitable project or disallowable as application outside India, and whether such remittances attract disallowance as payments to specified persons. It clarifies that where grant funds are contractually earmarked for foreign co investigators, those amounts constitute diversion by overriding title and are excluded from the assessee's free income for exemption purposes; conversely, disallowance under the specified person rule requires factual establishment that the foreign recipient falls within the specified person description. The remittance shortfall was limited to the actual deficiency for one assessment year; other years were allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sub-grant remitted by the assessee to the University of Texas, USA is an application of income for charitable purposes or is disallowable as application of income outside India under section 11(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether remittance to University of Texas attracts disallowance under section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Determination of the quantum of disallowance (if any) for assessment year 2010-11 and disposition of connected appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-15.

Issue (i): Whether the amounts remitted to University of Texas constitute application of income for the charitable project or are disallowable as application outside India under section 11(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the grant structure, agreement terms, the role of University of Texas as co-investigator/lead investigator, RBI approval for remittances, and the project-specific nature of the NIH grant. It assessed whether the receipts were free income of the assessee or tied to co-implementation obligations such that part of the grant was earmarked for international collaborators. The Tribunal applied the legal distinction between application of income after accrual and diversion of income by an overriding title, considering authorities on tied grants and diversion of income by antecedent obligation. On the facts the grant was found to be a tied-up project grant involving both Indian and US investigators and the sub-grants to University of Texas were payments attributable to the international investigators under the project agreement.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the sub-grants to University of Texas represent application of the tied grant for the co-implementation of the project (diversion by overriding title) and are not to be disallowed in full under section 11(1)(c); only the net grant retained for application in India is to be treated as the assessee's grant for exemption purposes. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the remittance to University of Texas results in disallowance under section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 because the recipient is a person covered by those provisions.

Analysis: The Tribunal analysed the definition of persons covered by section 13(3) (author, founder, substantial contributor, trustees/managers, relatives, and concerns with substantial interest). It examined the memorandum of association signatories and the factual matrix to determine whether University of Texas or the signatories derived direct or indirect benefit such that section 13(1)(c) would be attracted. The Tribunal found no basis on the record to treat University of Texas as a person specified in section 13(3) and observed that none of the signatories derived direct or indirect benefit from the sub-grants.

Conclusion: Invocation of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) was not justified on the facts; the Tribunal rejected the Assessing Officer's application of section 13(1)(c). This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): What is the correct quantum of disallowance for AY 2010-11 and the proper disposal of appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-15?

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the accounts and application of the 85% rule under sections 11/12, the assessee's multi-year receipts and applications, and the year-wise chart of receipts, applications and sub-grants. It found that only in AY 2010-11 the assessee applied less than 85% of receipts, resulting in a short application of Rs. 11,65,484. For subsequent years the assessee applied amounts equal to or exceeding the statutory requirement. The Tribunal therefore limited any disallowance to the actual shortfall in AY 2010-11 and applied the AY 2010-11 findings mutatis mutandis to the connected years where the issue was identical.

Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs. 11,65,484 for AY 2010-11; appeals for the other assessment years (2011-12 to 2014-15) were allowed. This disposition is partly in favour of the assessee (partial allowance for AY 2010-11 and full allowance for other years).

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the NIH grant was a tied-up project grant and sub-grants to the University of Texas were attributable project payments (diversion by overriding title) and not disallowable in full under section 11(1)(c) or by application of section 13(1)(c) on the facts; accordingly the Assessing Officer's disallowance is reduced and limited to the actual shortfall of Rs. 11,65,484 for AY 2010-11, and the appeals for the remaining assessment years are allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a grant is a tied-up project grant shared with foreign co-investigators and part of the funds are contractually earmarked for overseas collaborators, those earmarked amounts constitute diversion by overriding title and should be excluded from the assessee's income for exemption under sections 11/12; section 13(1)(c) applies only if the overseas recipient falls within persons specified in section 13(3), which must be established on the facts.

---