AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the order of the AO declining to give the benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the Appellant. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the objects of the Trust would clearly show that the trust was mainly for charitable purposes for providing facilities and amenities for the education of the poor, medical facilities etc. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that even the Kalyana Mantapa constructed was for the benefit of conducting religious and social functions besides performing marriages and also to provide -amenities like water, utensils, furniture, electricity etc which would show that the substantial objects of the Appellant-trust were charitable in nature to which the provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nguishable and on the other hand the case law cited by the Appellant would fully support the case of the Appellant. 10. Without prejudice, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the income generated out of Kalyana Mantapa was required to be assessed under the head "income from house property" in respect of the rental income and the other income generated was liable to be assessed under the head "income from other sources" without appreciating that the trust being a charitable trust, the surplus is required to be determined under commercial principles to which the provisions of Section 22 or Section 56 of the Act have no application. 11. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have followed the jurisdictional High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or charitable purposes and to the extent of non-application, the same was accumulated. The A.O., however, rejected the contentions of the assessee. The A.O. held that subsequent to the amendment and insertion of proviso with effect from 01.04.2019 to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act, the assessee's primary activity falls within the advancement of "any other object of general public utility" u/s 2(15) of the Act and since the receipts from such activities exceed the prescribed limit, the A.O. concluded that the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, in holding so, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Subharam Trust v. The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) in ITA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n utilized for charitable purpose mentioned in the object of the Trust, namely, education for the poor irrespective of cast, religion or community, providing accommodation for hostel facilities, boarding and loading to the poor students, etc. It was, therefore, submitted that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act. 6. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the primary object of the assessee is only letting out the kalyana mandapa. It was stated that activities of the assessee falls under last limb of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, namely, "any other object of general public utility". It was contended that the assessee was letting out the kalyana mandapa in a commercial manner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee had expended during the relevant assessment year a sum of Rs. 71,90,309 as revenue expenditure for charitable purpose and further sum of Rs. 5,36,957 as capital expenditure for charitable purposes. The said claim is not supported by any evidence. The assessee, admittedly, is not running any educational institution, nor the assessee has produced any proof for incurring any expenditure for the charitable purposes. 7.1 In the instant case, the assessee is primarily carrying on the activity of letting out of kalyana mandapa, which is nothing but objects of general public utility and the letting out is being done on a commercial basis by charging exorbitant amount. The amended proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act has application to ....