TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of capital expenditure, no depreciation is allowed on the same assets as this will lead to double deduction as in this case exemption u/s 11& 12 was not allowed by the assessing officer. 3. On the facts and 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 current year." 2. At the very outset, the counsel for the assessee stated that the grievance of the Revenue is well settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the order of this Tribunal in ITA No. 1130/Del/2016 order dated 19.07.2018 for assessment year 2011-12. The counsel further stated that this order of the Tribunal has not been interfered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Per Contra, the DR could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue. 3. We have carefully considered the orders of the authoriti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as added only in respect of the last limb of the provisions of Sec. 2(15) which relates to the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves carrying on of an activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee. The second limb is not relevant to the fact under consideration. A close perusal of the aforementioned proviso shows that the spirit of the section is same as per the section 2(15) as it stood prior to the amendment brought by Finance 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 ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charitable purpose contained in Sec. 2(15). The Circular further clarified "in the final analysis, whether the assessee has for its objects the advancement of any other object or general public utility is a question of fact. If such assessee is engaged in any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or renders any service in relation to trade, commerce or business, it would not be entitled to claim that its object is charitable purpose. In such a case, the object of general public utility will be only a mask or device to hide the true purpose which is trade commerce 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be brushed aside lightly even after the amendment. 26. After considering the entire facts in totality in the light of discussion hereinabove and also drawing support from the speech of the Finance Minister and subsequent clarification issued by the CBDT within the framework of amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Act, in our considered opinion, there was no material which may suggest that the assessee association was conducting its affairs solely on commercial lines with the motive to earn profit. There is also no material which could suggest that the assessee association has deviated from its objects which it has been pursuing since past many decades. In our humble opinion and understanding of law, proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the case and the assessee-association deserves benefit u/s 11/12 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the first appellate authority. Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed. 27. Next grievance relates to allowance of depreciation. 28. This issue is now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of the Hon&....