Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (9) TMI 1262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmitted as follows: "Our main objectives are for providing education and training to the bottom line employees on quality and improvement methods and integrate them with the main stream of the organisation. We assist in small and medium scale industries clustering them through their association" 2.2 The assessee supplied the relevant course material during the courses. If any organization (who were clients of the assessee) needed extra publication for their staff/ employees, it was supplied at a nominal cost. This showed that the assessee was providing training and its publications to its members only. The assessee had organized a National Convention on Quality Control (NCQC) where all the chapters located in different parts of the country had taken part. For NCQC 2009 the assessee had received the following amounts: i. Advertisement and sponsoring fee Rs.20,79,500 ii. Registration fee Rs.1,44,29,760 iii. Participation fee Rs.1,45,02,760 iv. Participation fee Rs.17,70,000 v. Souvenir donation Rs.2,48,000   2.3. The main activities of the assessee were providing training, consultancy, professional services to its clients in lieu of fees. The assessee had charged ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The AR submitted that the objectives of the assessee were in the nature of education and training, that the word education had not been defined in the Act, that the process of learning or training was also education and that education was not merely systematic teaching followed by a certificate, The AR submitted that education had a broader meaning u/s 2(15) than u/s 10(23C)(iiiab), (iiiad) and (vi) and therefore, the activities of the assessee were to be considered to be 'education'. 4.1 The AR submitted that even if the assessee's activity was to be considered as not falling within the definition of education, it fell under the residuary category, general public utility. The assessee aimed to develop the bottom line people many of whom had no means to pursue their education and to hone their skills and the most significant gain from such training was not monitory but self confidence and self satisfaction that the workers derive. 4.2 The AR also submitted that it was a well settled law that even when merely a section of society or public was benefited, exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied. The AR relied on the decision in the case of ICAI vs. DGIT [2013] 358 ITR 91 (D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. Your assessee submits that the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that your Assessee is carrying on education and training activities, based on the various case laws cited before CIT(A), within the meaning of education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee was allowed exemption during past 30 years and there is no change in objectives and activities of the assessee. 4. CIT (A) erred in concluding that there is no element of charity in the activities of your assessee, whereas your Assessee since inception in 1982, was granted exemption under section 11 on the basis that its objectives as well as its activities are charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer erred in law and facts of the case that your assessee was in fact carrying on education and training to which proviso to section 2(15) are not applicable and not have denied exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. CIT (A) as well as the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elied on the order of CIT(A) and also relied on the specific submissions of CIT(A) as below: "6.4 There is no doubt that the appellant is engaged in upgrading the skill of the workers to whom it imparts training. It is also doing it in a systematic and structured manner. However, it is necessary to examine the nature of these skills and the manner in which it is done in order to arrive at a conclusion whether such training falls within the definition of 'education' as per the decision of the Supreme Court. 6.9 What emerges from these case studies is that the teams of workers are encouraged to identify some problems affecting the business of their employer, the teams then studied and analysed the problem to arrive at a workable solution. The role of the appellant is to guide the workers in the process of analysis for finding the solution to the problems. In effect, the employer instead of hiring professional consultants for improving its productivity, relies on its own workers to do so. In the process, the appellant acts as a mentor for the workers in making them learn to think about and to analyse the problems from their work environment. 6.12 The decision of the Supreme Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant PY. The proviso will not apply in respect of the first three limbs of section 2(15) i.e. relief to the poor, education or medical relief. Thus, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief to the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable purpose' even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of the commercial activities. In the present case, the AO and CIT(A) have held that there exists income over expenditure and the assessee is charging certain fees for activities carried on by it, which amounts to carrying on of commercial activities, hence, denied the exemption u/s 11. We are of the view that mere charging of fees for carrying activities will not loose the character of charity and in this case, the department has already granted registration treating the activities as charitable but has not declared under which activity whether under education or general public utility. From the assessment order, the assessee has charged fee to various activities like seminars, participation fees of participants shows that assessee had engaged in some sort of lectures/training relating to the objects of the trust i.e. education and training to the bottom ....