Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"As it stands all that it requires for the business income of a trust of institution to be exempt is that the business soufd be incidental to the attainment of objectives of the trust or institution. A business whose income is utilised by the trust or the institution for the purposes of achieving the objectives of the trust. In any event, if there by any ambiguity in the language employed, the provision must be construed in a manner that benefits the assessee.

Prime facie the above observations would appear to support the assessess case in the sense that even if the Katha Business is held not to constitute a business held under trust, but only as a business earned on by or on behalf of the trust, so long as the profits generated by it are applied for the charitable objects of the trust, the condition imposed under section 11(4A) of the Act should be held to be satisfied\ entitling the trust to the tax exemption.

In our opinion, these observations have to be understood in the light of the facts before the Supreme Court. Thanthi Trust carried on the business of a newspaper and that business itself was held under trust. The charitable object of the trust was the imparting of education which falls under section 2(15) of the Act. The newspaper business was certainly incidental to the attainment of the object of the trust, namely that of imparting education. The observations were thus made having regard to the fact that the profits of the newspaper business were utilised by the trust for achieving the object, namely education. The type of nexus or connection which existed between the imparting of education and the carrying on of the business of a newspaper does not exist in the present case. There is no such nexus between the Katha Business and the objects of the assessee - trust that can constitute the carrying on of the katha business an activity incidental to the attainment of the objects, namely advancing of education, patriotism Indian culture running of hospitals and dispensaries, etc. 5.3 In view of the above finding of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, this contention of the assessee is rejected and it is held that the assessee's business cannot be held to be incidental to its objectives. The assessee is carrying out commercial activities as has been accepted by the assessee itself. Therefore, the assessee's request for grant of registration is rejected on this account.

6. Further, it is noted that out of total receipts of Rs,81,16,256/-, it has spent Rs. 75,35,614/- on administrative expenses. Thus, assessee has not done any charitable work as contemplated in its objectives except giving donation to another charitable trust. What prevented the asses see in carrying out any charitable work directly. It has put all its efforts in managing the parking area. Giving donation and will not fall in any of the limbs " relief to poor' 1 education' or medical relief. It is not only the objectives, but also actual application of income, which needs to be kept in view. Even if, assessee claimed that it managed parking area and it carried activity for attainment of its objectives, even then it was necessary to show that in advancement of its objective, it had incurred certain expenditure on objects as stated in MOA. The only activity it carried out was for generating of income and giving donation to another trust, which cannot be held to be carrying out its objectives. The assessee fails on this account too.

4. The learned CIT(DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. DIT(E).

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that before the learned DIT(E) the assessee has accepted that it was carrying out activity of managing parking area at Akshardham complex, which is commercial/business in nature. The Ld. counsel contested before us that this business activity was incidental to the objects of the assessee trust and the assessee having complied with the condition of section 11(4A) of the Act, it is eligible for exemption and registration. The Ld. DIT(E) held that the activity of managing the parking area was not even remotely connected with the objects of the assessee of education, relief to poor, medical relief, environment protection etc. Before us, the Ld. counsel failed to demonstrate as how the activity of managing parking area was connected with the object of the assessee trust and incidental to the objects of the trust. Further, we note that the assessee has not carried out any charitable activity as contemplated in its object except giving donation to another charitable trust. Giving donation to another charitable trust can amount to an activity of general public utility only. The decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of Suvasini Charitable Trust (supra) is distinguishable on the facts. In the said case, dispute before the Tribunal was in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer and not in respect of rejection of registration under section 12AA of the Act . Further in that case the activity of running cafeteria was for promotion of vegetarianism and was claimed as incidental to the main object of providing medical relief to the poor. In the present case, the assessee has failed to establish the activity of managing parking area as incidental to the main object of education or medical relief. The Ld. DIT(E) has relied on the various decision of the Tribunal in support of her finding of rejecting the registration under section 12AA of the Act. In our opinion, the order of the Ld. DIT(E) rejecting the registration under section 12AA of the Act is well reasoned and we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. DIT(E), accordingly, we dismiss the ground of the appeal.