TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill lead to double deduction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that without prejudice to denial of exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act to the assessee by the AO for invoking first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, provisions of section 11, 12 & 13 of the Act do not envisage set off of deficit /excess expenditure of earlier assessment years and the income of the current year" 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length. The case records carefully perused and with the assistance of the ld. Counsel, we have considered the documentary evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Book in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules. Judicial decisions relied upon were carefully perused. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was registered under the Societies Act, 1860 on 12.06.1965. The assessee-society is also granted registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] vide order dated 20.08.2002 and also u/s 80G(vi) of the Act from 01.04.2008 to 31.3.2011. The assessee is an Apex sports ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and proviso to section 2(15) of the Act do not apply. The CIT(A), accordingly, directed the AO to allow benefit u/s 11/12 of the Act. 11. On the denial of depreciation, the CIT(A) was once again convinced with the contention of the assessee and directed the AO to allow depreciation. 12. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 13. The ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the AO and through his written submissions, the ld. DR explained the history of section 2(15) of the Act since its inception i.e., from the Act of 1922. It is the say of the ld. DR that in the earlier years, the dominant and prime object was relevant but post amendment, the dominant object is no more relevant and the first appellate authority has grossly erred in allowing relief to the assessee by considering dominant purpose, making the order erroneous and against the judicial decisions. 14. Per contra, the ld. AR supporting the findings of the CIT(A) reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 15. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The only reason for denying the claim of exemption is proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 16. Section 2(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Act, 1983 as mentioned hereinabove. 19. All that has to be decided now is whether the sponsorship contract with Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd constitutes carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, which activities the trust is carrying on prior to the amendment brought by Finance Act, 1983. "General" means pertaining to whole class, "Public" means the body of people at large including any class of the public, "Utility" means usefulness. 20. Therefore, the advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from individual and group of individuals would be a charitable purpose. An object of public utility need not be an object in which the whole of the public is interested. It is sufficient if well defined section of the public benefits by the objects which means that the expression "object of general public utility" is not restricted to objects beneficial to the whole mankind. An object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility. In the case of CIT Vs Swastik Trading Co. Ltd. 113 ITR 852, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that establishing and maintaini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or business or the rendering of any service in relation to trade, commerce or business. Each case would therefore be decided on its own facts and no generalization is possible. 24. Thus, even the CBDT does not lay down any guidelines for determining whether the entity is carrying on any commercial activity. Each case would therefore to be decided on its own facts and as the CBDT has clarified generalization is not possible. 25. Coming back to the objects of the impugned association, the fundamental or dominant function of the association is to represent the country in international forums. Associations of different disciplines in sports in India are members/affiliated to IOA. In furtherance of its activities, the association not only requires grants from the Government, but on many occasions sponsorships. This cannot be an activity by itself amounting to carrying on of any business, trade or commerce. The impugned association is engaged in multi level activities of diverse nature but the primary and dominant activity is promoting sports activities not only in India but also in international forum. The impugned association would not lose its character of charitable purpose merely ....