TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst this, the ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT (A). She also submitted that as per para 14 of assessment order, this is the allegation of the AO that the assessee was established for the purpose of promoting Indian Industry and trade and to enhance its global competitiveness by conducting and participating in Industrial trade fairs and exhibitions Indian and abroad. She submitted that as per the objects of the assessee as reproduced by AO in para 4 of the assessment order, the assessee was incorporated with the main objects such as to promote, training and the diffusion of knowledge to standards in the manufacture of Tools and Gauges to improve the standards or the connected trade therewith or with allied industries and to impart relevant and appropriate training to all those engaged in the manufacture of tool and gauge manufactures. At this juncture, this was a query put forward by the bench as to what are the actual activities taken by the assessee and what are the expenses incurred for such activities and what are the receipts if any from such activities. In reply, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the assessee has submitted the audited accounts of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial trade, other fairs and exhibitions in India and abroad and to take all measures incidental thereto for promoting Indian industry, trade and enhance its global competitiveness is not correct. It was contended that this object is not there in the objects for which the assessee trust came into existence. 6. The submission made by the assessee has been examined with reference to the objects of the assessee trust and it is found that the object mentioned above does not figure in the list of objects for which the assessee trust have come into existence. c. It was also contended by the assessee that the observation made by the AO at para 10.2 of the assessment order is factually inaccurate. In so far as the assessee does not do anything to boost expert potential for local industry. d. The assessee representative also drew attention to para 14 of the assessment order where it was mentioned by the AO that the assessee owns a exhibition hall and it was proved by the AR with reference to the depreciation statement filed by the assessee that no such exhibition hall is owned by the assessee. 7. Ground numbers 11,12 and 13 deal with the Factually incorrec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the above receipts, it is clear that the same cannot beheld as having been received on account of any trade or commerce. 13. In view of the above reasoning, following the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, it has to be held that the conclusion drawn by the AO that provisions of Sec.2(15) are applicable to the facts of the assessee is not a proper conclusion. Accordingly, the assessee is held to be entitled for exemption u/s.11. The AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee considering that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.11." 5. From these paras reproduced from the order of CIT (A), it is seen that ld. CIT (A) has reproduced the submissions of the ld. AR of assessee in Para 5 of his order and thereafter, he has given a finding in Para 6 of his order that the objects mentioned by the AO in para 9.2 of the assessment order do not figure in the list of objects for which the assessee trust have come into existence. But we find that in para 9.2 of the assessment order, the AO is not discussing about the objects of the assessee. In this Para, the AO is discussing about the activities and hence, for the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the body of the assessment order to come to conclusion that proviso to section 2(15) is applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee and in para 8 of the impugned order, the CIT(A) has come to the conclusion that the submissions made by ld. AR of assessee have been examined and it appears that that the plea of the assessee regarding factual inaccuracies, incorrect statements in the assessment order appears to be correct without giving any basis for coming to this conclusion and particularly, when we examine the income and expenditure account of the assessee available in the paper book, we find that only activity undertaken by the assessee in the present year is taking a hall on rent by paying hall rent of Rs. 125 Lakhs and earning income of Rs. 482.48 Lakhs as stall space charges. Moreover as per paras 11 and 12 of the order of CIT(A) as reproduced above, the CIT(A) has reproduced various incomes declared by the assessee in the income and expenditure account which includes DMI Exhibition -2012 income of Rs. 506.20 Lakhs and DMI Exhibition -2011 income of Rs. 14.11 Lakhs in addition to income of Rs. 60.51 Lakhs as interest from bank and thereafter, he has come to the concl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ease deed in respect of Pragati Maidan Complex came to be executed in favour of the petitioner only in March 2011. There was, however, yet another impediment in undertaking the renovation projects of Pragati Maidan Complex and that was the requirement of change in land use in the records of DDA to be formally notified. It was also pointed out that only recently, the government had issued directives to the petitioners to construct a state of the art conventioncum- exhibition centre in Pragati Maidan in place of the old infrastructure which was constructed about four (4) decades back. According to the petitioner, the corpus of funds available with the petitioner may not be sufficient to meet the cost of the new project." 8. From the above Para no. 5 of this judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is seen that in that case, Pragati Maidan Complex was allotted by Govt. of India to the assessee at a nominal ground rent of Re 1 per annum for the initial 5 years which was subsequently revised to Rs. 6 Lakhs (approximately) per annum and same ground rent continues till the relevant year and because the assessee obtained such premium land from Govt. of India at a nominal groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose, was profitable in nature. In our view the basic principle underlying the definition of "charitable purpose" remained unaltered even on amendment in the section 2(15) of the Act w.e.f. 01/04/2009, though the restrictive first proviso was inserted therein. Accordingly, in the given facts of the case as discussed above in detail, the assessee association's primary purpose was advancement of objects of general public utility and it would remain charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee's appeal is allowed." 10. From the above para reproduced from this Tribunal order, it is seen that the basis of decision in this case is this that where the main object of the institution was "charitable" in nature, then the activities carried out towards the achievement of the said main object, being incidental or ancillary to the main object, even if resulting in profit and even if carried out with non members,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is available on page 59 of the paper book. First item is Annual membership subscription amounting to Rs. 1.81 crore. This comprises of annual membership subscription and admission fees. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has 46 regular members who pay annual fees of Rs. 7.50 lac and there are roughly 350 temporary members who pay @ Rs. 50,000/- per annum. No carrying on of any business can be inferred from receipt of annual membership subscription by the assessee, which is a regular feature ab initio. Next item is Technical literature publications receipt amounting to Rs. 1.93 lac. This was stated to be receipt of some amount for bringing out publications in relation to the automobile industry etc. This amount received for publication of some technical literature concerning the automobile industry cannot be considered as carrying on of any trade, business or commerce. The next item is interest received amounting to Rs. 1.60 lac, which has been earned from banks, bonds, etc. This receipt also cannot be considered as arising from carrying on of any trade, commerce or business. The next important receipt is Rs. 1 crore from Auto Expo 2008. The AO has also accentuated o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er expenses in doing these activities, the same is a normal incidence of the activity of promotion of automobile industries and cannot be characterized as doing any business etc. or rendering of any services in connection with business etc. Since the AO has denied the benefit of sections 11 and 12 on the ground that the assessee did not fall within the scope of charitable purpose defined in section 2(15) of the Act because of carrying on or rendering of any services in business, trade and commerce, which in our considered opinion is not a correct interpretation of the provision, we direct to grant such benefit to the assessee. The impugned order is overturned pro tanto." 12. From the above Para 11 of this Tribunal order, it is seen that in that case, Rs. 1 Crore was received by that assessee from organizing Auto Expo 2008. This is also noted that the automobile manufacturers give advertisements of their products which is the major source of receipts from Auto Expo apart from sale of tickets. Apart from this, in that case, the major receipt was of Rs. 1.85 Crores for seminars and conferences. In the present case, there is no receipt from seminars or conferences and no expenditure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Rs. 3,41,72,222/- was not applied by assessee for charitable purpose or the objects of the assessee trust, in our considered opinion, under these facts, this Tribunal order is also not applicable in the facts of present case. 15. The next decision cited before us is the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of GS1 India Vs. DGIT (E) as reported in [2014] 360 ITR 138(Delhi). In this case, the dispute was regarding assessee's eligibility for registration u/s. 10(23C)(iv) and not regarding exemption u/s. 11 of IT Act and hence, in our considered opinion, this judgment is not applicable in the facts of present case. 16. Moreover, Para nos. 20 to 27 of this judgement are relevant and the same are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference. "20. In the present case, "the business" is not held in trust and neither is "the business" feeding the charity. The very "act or activity of charity" as claimed by the petitioner is regarded by the revenue as nothing but business, trade or commerce. Money received, of course is used and utilized for the charitable activities. Four reasons are elucidated and propound in the impugned order to state t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clusive rights to issue global bar coding system GS1 in India. However the petitioner is not dealing or treating the prized rights as a right, which is to be exploited commercially to earn or generate profits. A coding system of this nature if marketed on commercial lines with profit motive would amount to business but when the underlying and propelling motive is not to earn profits or commercially exploit the rights but "general public good" i.e. to promote and make GS1 coding system available to Indian traders, manufacturers, government etc, it will fail the test of business and meets the touchstone of charity. The petitioner is not directly or indirectly subjecting their activity to market mechanism/ dynamics (i.e. demand and supply), rather it is motivated and prompted to serve the beneficiaries. This is not a case of commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights to earn profits but rather a case where a token fee has been fixed and payable by the user of the global identification system. 24. The petitioner does not cater to the lowest or marginalized section of the society, but Government, public sector and private sector manufacturers and traders. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be ignored. There are stipulations in Sections 11, 13 etc. of the Act to prevent misuse of or siphoning of funds, bar/prohibit gains to related persons, stipulations of time limits for use of funds, which are effective checks and curtail and deny benefit in cases of abuse. There is no such allegation or contention of the Revenue in the present case. 27. As observed above, fee charged and quantum of income earned can be indicative of the fact that the person is carrying on business or commerce and not charity, but we must keep in mind that charitable activities require operational/running expenses as well as capital expenses to be able to sustain and continue in long run. The petitioner has to be substantially self-sustaining in long-term and should not depend upon government, in other words taxpayers should not subsidize the said activities, which nevertheless are charitable and fall under the residuary clause "general public utility". The impugned order does not refer to any statutory mandate that a charitable institution falling under the last clause should be wholly, substantially or in part must be funded by voluntary contributions. No such requirement has been pointed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not apply. In our considered opinion, in the facts of present case, this judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court is not applicable. 20. As per above discussion, we have seen that none of the judgments cited by the learned AR of the assessee is applicable in the present case. As against this, the ld. DR of revenue has also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements. a) DGIT Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, [2016] 236 Taxman 481 (SC) b) CIT Vs. Truck Operators Association, [2010] 328 ITR 636 (Punjab & Haryana) c) Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 292 (Amritsar-Trib.) d) Employers' Federation of Southern India Vs. ADIT (E), [2017] 54 ITR(T) 568 (Chennai-Trib.) 21. But in the facts of present case, we do not consider it necessary to examine the applicability of these judgements in the present case because as per the above discussion, we have seen that in the present case, the assessee is not doing any activity in respect of its stated main objects i.e. to promote training and the diffusion of knowledge relating to standards in the manufacture of Tools and Gauges to improve the st....