Delhi High Court - Orders
Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs India International Centre on 8 February, 2024
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~5 & 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 400/2023 & CM APPL. 37492/2023 (94 Days Delay)
37493/2023 (243 Days Delay in Refiling)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(EXEMPTIONS) DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC.
versus
INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha & Mr. Arjun
Singh Kadian, Advs.
+ ITA 402/2023 & CM APPL. 37499/2023 (94 Days Delay)
37500/2023 (243 Days Delay in Refiling)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(EXEMPTIONS) DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC.
versus
INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha & Mr. Arjun
Singh Kadian, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR
KAURAV
ORDER
% 08.02.2024
1. Mr. Maratha, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the following conclusions as came to be recorded by the Supreme Court in ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [(2023) 4 SCC 561]:
"IV. Summation of conclusions This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2024 at 21:51:05
269. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act.
A. General test under Section 2(15)
270. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself in any trade, commerce or business, or provide service in relation thereto for any consideration ("cess, or fee, or any other consideration").
271. However, in the course of achieving the object of general public utility, the trust, society, or other such organisation concerned, can carry on trade, commerce or business or provide services in relation thereto for consideration, provided that (i) the activities of trade, commerce or business are connected ("actual carrying out ..." inserted w.e.f. 1-4-2016) to the achievement of its objects of GPU; and (ii) the receipt from such business or commercial activity or service in relation thereto, does not exceed the quantified limit, as amended over the years (Rs 10 lakhs w.e.f. 1-4-2009; then Rs 25 lakhs w.e.f. 1-4-2012; and now 20% of total receipts of the previous year, w.e.f. 1-4-2016).
272. Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for such an activity (advancing general public utility), which is on cost-basis or nominally above cost, cannot be considered to be "trade, commerce, or business" or any services in relation thereto. It is only when the charges are markedly or significantly above the cost incurred by the assessee in question, that they would fall within the mischief of "cess, or fee, or any other consideration"
towards "trade, commerce or business". In this regard, the Court has clarified through illustrations what kind of services or goods provided on cost or nominal basis would normally be excluded from the mischief of trade, commerce, or business, in the body of the judgment.
273. Section 11(4-A) must be interpreted harmoniously with Section 2(15), with which there is no conflict. Carrying out activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or service in relation to such activities, should be conducted in the course of achieving the GPU object, and the income, profit or surplus or gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in Section 11(4-A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23-C) and third proviso to Section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2024 at 21:51:05 the statutory provisions.
B. Authorities, corporations, or bodies established by statute
274. The amounts or any money whatsoever charged by a statutory corporation, board or any other body set up by the State Governments or Central Government, for achieving what are essentially "public functions/services" (such as housing, industrial development, supply of water, sewage management, supply of foodgrain, development and town planning, etc.) may resemble trade, commercial, or business activities. However, since their objects are essential for advancement of public purposes/functions (and are accordingly restrained by way of statutory provisions), such receipts are prima facie to be excluded from the mischief of business or commercial receipts. This is in line with the larger Bench judgments of this Court in Shri Ramtanu Coop. Housing Society [Shri Ramtanu Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 323] and NDMC [NDMC v. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 339] .
275. However, at the same time, in every case, the assessing authorities would have to apply their minds and scrutinise the records, to determine if, and to what extent, the consideration or amounts charged are significantly higher than the cost and a nominal markup. If such is the case, then the receipts would indicate that the activities are in fact in the nature of "trade, commerce or business" and as a result, would have to comply with the quantified limit (as amended from time to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act.
276. In clause (b) of Section 10(46) of the IT Act, "commercial" has the same meaning as "trade, commerce, business" in Section 2(15) of the IT Act. Therefore, sums charged by such notified body, authority, board, trust or commission (by whatever name called) will require similar consideration -- i.e. whether it is at cost with a nominal markup or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the mischief of "commercial activity". However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether and to what extent, exemption can be awarded to bodies that are notified under Section 10(46).
277. For the period 1-4-2003 to 1-4-2011, a statutory corporation could claim the benefit of Section 2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case [CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board, (2007) 14 SCC 704 :
(2007) 12 SCR 962] . Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 1-4-2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2024 at 21:51:05 claiming that it is set up for a charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23-C) or other provisions of the Act.
C. Statutory regulators
278. The income and receipts of statutory regulatory bodies which are for instance, tasked with exclusive duties of prescribing curriculum, disciplining professionals and prescribing standards of professional conduct, are prima facie not business or commercial receipts. However, this is subject to the caveat that if the assessing authorities discern that certain kinds of activities carried out by such regulatory body involved charging of fees that are significantly higher than the cost incurred (with a nominal markup) or providing other facilities or services such as admission forms, coaching classes, registration processing fees, etc. at markedly higher prices, those would constitute commercial or business receipts. In that event, the overall quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15) (as amended from time to time) has to be complied with, if the regulatory body is to be considered as one with "charitable purpose" eligible for exemption under the IT Act.
279. Like statutory authorities which regulate professions, statutory bodies which certify products (such as seeds) based on standards for qualification, etc. will also be treated similarly.
D. Trade promotion bodies
280. Bodies involved in trade promotion (such as AEPC), or set up with the objects of purely advocating for, coordinating and assisting trading organisations, can be said to be involved in advancement of objects of general public utility. However, if such organisations provide additional services such as courses meant to skill personnel, providing private rental spaces in fairs or trade shows, consulting services, etc. then income or receipts from such activities, would be business or commercial in nature. In that event, the claim for tax exemption would have to be again subjected to the rigours of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act.
E. Non-statutory bodies
281. In the present batch of cases, non-statutory bodies performing public functions, such as ERNET and NIXI are engaged in important public purposes. The materials on record show that fees or consideration charged by them for the purposes provided are nominal. In the circumstances, it is held that the said two assessees are driven by charitable purposes. However, the claims of such non-statutory organisations performing public functions, will have to be ascertained on a yearly basis, and the Tax This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2024 at 21:51:06 Authorities must discern from the records, whether the fees charged are nominally above the cost, or have been increased to much higher levels.
282. It is held that though GS1 India is in fact, involved in advancement of general public utility, its services are for the benefit of trade and business, from which they receive significantly high receipts. In the circumstances, its claim for exemption cannot succeed having regard to amended Section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal markup.
F. Sports Associations
283. So far as the State Cricket Associations are concerned (Saurashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Baroda, and Rajkot), this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires further scrutiny, in light of the discussion in paras 244-254 of the judgment. Accordingly, a direction is issued that the AO shall adjudicate the matter afresh after issuing notice to the assessees concerned and examining the relevant material indicated in the previous paragraphs of this judgment. Furthermore, if any consequential order needs to be issued, the same shall be done and resulting actions, including assessment orders shall be passed in accordance with the law under relevant provisions of the IT Act.
G. Private trusts
284. So far as the appeal by assessee Tribune Trust is concerned, it has been held that despite advancing general public utility, the Trust cannot benefit from exemption offered to entities covered by Section 2(15) as the records reveal that income received from advertisements, constituted business or commercial receipts. Consequently, the limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15) has to be adhered to for the Trust's claim of being as a charity eligible for exemption, to succeed. Therefore, despite differing reasoning, this Court has held that the impugned judgment [Tribune Trust v. CIT, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 19432] of the High Court does not call for interference.
H. Application of interpretation
285. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the conclusions arrived at by way of this judgment, neither precludes any of the assessees (whether statutory, or non-statutory) advancing objects of general public utility, from claiming exemption, nor the Taxing Authorities from denying exemption, in the future, if the receipts of the relevant year exceed the quantitative limit. The assessing This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2024 at 21:51:06 authorities must on a yearly basis, scrutinise the record to discern whether the nature of the assessee's activities amount to "trade, commerce or business" based on its receipts and income (i.e. whether the amounts charged are on cost-basis, or significantly higher). If it is found that they are in the nature of "trade, commerce or business", then it must be examined whether the quantified limit (as amended from time to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus disentitling them to exemption."
2. It was his contention that while the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] has been consistently following the judgments rendered by this Court on the question of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"], and which is also evident from Annexure A/5 of the present appeal, those judgments have neither dealt with the aspects which are alluded to in the judgment aforenoted nor have the activities and revenues earned tested on the aforesaid parameters.
3. Since lead counsel appearing for the respondent / assessee was unavailable when the matter was taken in the pass over, let the appeal be re-notifed for 19.03.2024.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
FEBRUARY 8, 2024/kk This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/02/2024 at 21:51:06