Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

predominant motive of the appellant ought to be seen. Where the primary and dominant purpose of the trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose, cannot disentitle the trust or the institution from being considered as existing for charitable purpose. In support of these submissions, Mr. Bhan also relied upon other judgments which we will refer to.

20. Mr. Goel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand emphasized that the words in the proviso are "carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business" and not "carrying on of trade, commerce or business". Therefore, according to him the nature of the activity is to be determined. According to him, the activities need be only akin to trade, commerce or business. The performance of an act or steps taken towards the object in physical form are to be identified and when such steps or acts are in an organized manner, akin to any trade, commerce, business etc., then that activity should be considered as falling within the proviso. It is important to note that in the written submission he contended that the concept of profit motive is required when the institution is engaged in trade or commerce.

20 of 74 ITA-62-2015 and ITA 147-2016 - 21 -

What is it that must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit in order to satisfy the requirement of the definition; "advancement" or "object of general public utility?" The Revenue contended that it was the former and urged that whatever be the object of general public utility, its "advancement" or achievement must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit, or in other words, no activity for profit must be carried on for the purpose of achieving or attaining the object of general public utility. The argument was that if the means to achieve or carry out the object of general public utility involve the carrying on of any activity for profit, the purpose of the trust or institution, though falling within the description "any other object of general public utility" would not be a charitable purpose and the income from business would not be exempt from tax. Now, if this argument is right it would not be possible for a charitable trust or institution whose purpose is promotion of an object of general public utility to carry on any activity for profit at all. Not only would it be precluded from carrying on a business in the course of the actual carrying out of the primary purpose of the trust or institution, but it would also be unable to carry on any business even though the business is held under trust or legal obligation to apply its income wholly to the charitable purpose or is carried on by the trust or institution by way of investment of its monies for the purpose of earning profit which, under the terms of its constitution, is applicable solely for feeding the charitable purpose. The consequence would be that even if a business is carried on by a trust or institution for the purpose of accomplishing or carrying out an object of general public utility and the income from such business is applicable only for achieving that object, the purpose of the trust or institution would cease to be charitable and not only income from such business but also income derived from other sources would lose the exemption. This would indeed be a far reaching consequence but we do not think that such a consequence was intended to be brought about by the legislature when it introduced the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" in Section 2 clause (15). Our reasons for saying so are as follows:

falls within the expression 'advancement of any other object of general public utility'. The Division Bench held:-

"21. Wherever, the terms of the trust permit its operation 'for profit' they become, prima facie, evidence of a purpose falling outside the ambit of 'charity'. Ordinarily, profit motive is a normal incident of business activity and if the activity of a trust results in yielding profit, it could be concluded that the object of the trust involves the carrying on of an activity for profit. Wherever predominant object of the trust is charitable purpose and ancillary business activity results in profit, the profit earned is required to be utilized for the purposes of charity and if it is shown that the 'profits of the business' as per term of the trust are utilized for the purposes of the trust, the factum of activities yielding profit would not alter the charitable character of the trust."

                                 51 of 74

 ITA-62-2015 and ITA 147-2016                                   - 52 -

61. Mr. Goel, relied upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Ideal Publications Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2008] 305 ITR 143 (Kerala). Paragraph-8 of the judgment reads as under:-

"8. So far as the position after the amendment of sub-section 4A of Section 11 is concerned also, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to exemption, because exemption is available in respect of the income only if the business carried on by the Trust is incidental to the attainment of the objects of the Trust. Admittedly, the appellant Trust has not utilised or set apart any part of the income for any of the charitable purposes referred to in the objects clause, viz. education, medical relief or relief of the poor. The appellant is only engaged in publication of the newspaper which is run on commercial lines including charging of commercial tariff for advertisements and charging of price for the newspaper at rates comparable to other newspapers run for profit. However, the appellant's case is that the business of printing and publication of newspaper itself is an object of general public utility and so much so the income therefrom is exempt - from tax. We are unable to accept this proposition because we are of the view that in order to qualify for exemption in respect of income from profits and gains of business, the business, after the amendment of sub-section (4A) of Section 11, should be carried on as an incidental activity to the attainment of the objects of the Trust and not as an object in itself. In other words, the business itself should not be the object of the trust, even though the business may advance the object of general public utility. In fact, if a contrary meaning is assigned to the section, any business income involving advancement of object of general public utility will be exempt from tax. In fact, every business to some extent advances object of general public utility. However, what is intended in sub-section (4 A) of Section 11 is that the object of the Trust should be for charitable purpose which includes advancement of object of general public utility and income from any business carried should be incidental to the objectives of the Trust Since the appellant has no other activity other than the business of printing and publication of newspaper on commercial line, we are of the view that the business itself cannot be said to be an object of general public utility entitling the appellant for exemption as a charitable institution. The Supreme Court in the Thanthi Trust's case [2001] 247 ITR 785 referred to above held that publication of newspaper is not education and therefore unless the business of publication of newspaper falls under Clause (4A), exemption cannot be granted."