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 / TMI Blogs / RSS

2022 (7) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing any fee for such use. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the benefit to the trustees in violation of section 13 as under - a. By providing the residential accommodation to Dr. G. S. Kulkarni, Dr. Milind Kulkarni and Dr. Sunil Kulkarni at Rs.8,16,000/-. b. Allowing Dr. Kulkarni and other doctors from Kulkarni family the user of the Trust's hospital equipments free of cost at Rs. 1,95,899/-. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that considering the following facts the trust obtained a larger benefit from Dr. G. S. Kulkarni and his family members and thus, they did not obtain any benefit from the trust which could violate the provisions of section 13 - a. Dr. G. S. Kulkarni, Trustee had not charged any rent to the trust over the years for the portion of his hospital building and assets therein. b. Doctors of Kulkarni family had never charged the trust the professional charges in treating and operating its patients. 4] The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the stand taken by the assessee that the trust had provided accommodation at a concessional rate to Kulkarni Family Doctors as their services as doctors ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, accordingly, the assessee was show-caused to explain as to why the exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant trust had filed a detailed explanation stating that Dr. G. S. Kulkarni is an Orthopaedic Surgeon for last 52 to 60 years. The appellant trust was found by Dr. G. S. Kulkarni with philanthropic objective. The building owned by Dr. G. S. Kulkarni was allowed to be used by the appellant trust to pursue its charitable objects without charging any rent. Even in the initial years of operation of the appellant trust, the equipment belonging to Dr. G. S. Kulkarni was allowed to be used by the appellant trust for charitable activities. The patients come to the appellant trust‟s hospital only on account of goodwill and reputation of Dr. G. S. Kulkarni. Thus, the appellant trust had denied that the patients of the trust were diverted to the individual practice of Dr. G. S. Kulkarni and his two sons. 5. As regards to the provisions of residential accommodation to Dr. G. S. Kulkarni and his two sons, it is submitted that Dr. G. S. Kulkarni and his two sons were rendering voluntary services to the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....two sons, family members were rendering voluntarily professional services to the appellant trust without charging any fees from the appellant trust. Thus, it was argued that the operation rooms and bungalows occupied by the trustees of Dr. G. S. Kulkarni and his two sons cannot be said to be without any consideration. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits that the appellant trust had clearly violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) by allowing use of operation rooms by Dr. G. S. Kulkarni and his two sons and paying nominal rent for occupation of the bungalows owned by the appellant trust and, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be sustained. 10. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the determination whether or not the appellant trust had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act?. Admittedly, Dr. G. S. Kulkarni and his two sons (hereinafter referred as "specified persons) used the operation rooms owned by the appellant trust for his private practice without paying any rent or fees for such use. Dr. G. S. Kulkarni and his two sons had occupied the accommodation that owned by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t day of June, 1970; ..... ..... (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of clause (c) and clause (d) of sub-section (1), the income or the property of the trust or institution or any part of such income or property shall, for the purposes of that clause, be deemed to have been used or applied for the benefit of a person referred to in sub-section (3),- (a) if any part of the income or property of the trust or institution is, or continues to be, lent to any person referred to in sub-section (3) for any period during the previous year without either adequate security or adequate interest or both; (b) if any land, building or other property of the trust or institution is, or continues to be, made available for the use of any person referred to in sub-section (3), for any period during the previous year without charging adequate rent or other compensation; (c) if any amount is paid by way of salary, allowance or otherwise during the previous year to any person referred to in sub-section (3) out of the resources of the trust or institution for services rendered by that person to such trust or institution and the am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Similarly, the residential accommodation belonging to the appellant trust were used by specified persons who are specified persons u/s 13(1)(c) by paying rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. The further question that arises for determination is whether these benefits were availed by the specified persons without any other compensations or rent paid by such specified persons is inadequate. In case, it is found that these specified persons had availed the benefit from the appellant trust for compensation in any other form or rent paid is adequate, the question of applicability of section 13(1)(c) does not arise. Therefore, the question that arises before us is whether compensation had been paid to the appellant trust in lieu of the benefit availed by the specified persons and rent paid by the specified person is adequate. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant trust that the buildings owned by the specified persons is used by the appellant without payment of any rent remains uncontroverted by the Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that the specified persons had availed the benefit from the appellant trust without paying any compensations to the appellant trust. Furthermore, i....