SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Commissioner Of Income Tax - Appellant
Versus
India Trade Promotion Organisation - Respondent
Income Tax Appeal No. 3,4, 5 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1577, 1694, 1695 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mayank Nagi, Advocate, Abhishek Maratha, Advocate

The dominant and prime objective of an institution claiming charitable purpose must not be profit-making, and if its motive is to do charity through the advancement of an object of general public utility, it qualifies as an institution established for charitable purposes.

Headnote:

Charitable Purpose - Income Tax - Sec 2(15), Sec 10(23C)(iv)/11/12 - The court discussed the interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the dominant and prime objective of an institution claiming charitable purpose must not be profit-making. The judgment passed in WP(C) 1872/2013 upheld the Constitutional validity of the proviso but required it to be read down in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv). The court highlighted that if the institution's motive is to do charity through the advancement of an object of general public utility, it qualifies as an institution established for charitable purposes.

Fact of the Case:

The appeals challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the qualification for charitable purpose under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the activities of the respondent/assessee did qualify for charitable purpose, as the dominant activity was not profit-making but aimed at promoting trade and commerce for the nation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent/assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv)/11/12 of the Income Tax Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the dominant and prime objective of an institution claiming charitable purpose must not be profit-making, and if its motive is to do charity through the advancement of an object of general public utility, it qualifies as an institution established for charitable purposes.

Final Decision: The present appeals and pending applications were dismissed, being covered by the judgment passed in WP(C) 1872/2013.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. - The appeals have been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 13th September, 2019 passed by Delhi Bench 'D' of Income Tax appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'ITaT') in ITa Nos. 1919/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2009-10, 2508/Del/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 and 3135/Del/2016 for the assessment Year 2011-12.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the activities of the respondent/assessee do not qualify for charitable purpose in view of the Proviso to Sec 2(15) of the Income Tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and hence the assessee does not qualify for the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv)/11/12 of the act.

4. It is pertinent to mention that in a writ petition being India Trade Promotion Organization vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Others in WP(C) 1872/2013, the learned predecessor Division Bench issued a Mandamus to the appellant herein to grant approval to the respondent herein under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the act. The relevant portion of the said judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench is reproduced hereinbelow:

    '53.From the said decision, it is apparent that merely because a fee or some other consideration is collected or received by an institution, it would not lose its character of having been established for a charitable purpose. It is also important to note that we must examine as to what is the dominant activity of the institution in question. If the dominant activity of the institution was not business, trade or commerce, then any such incidental or ancillary activity would also not fall within the categories of trade, commerce or business. It is clear from the facts of the present case that the driving force is not the desire to earn profits but, the object of promoting trade and commerce not for itself, but for the nation - both within India and outside India. Clearly, this is a charitable purpose, which has as its motive the advancement of an object of general public utility to which the exception carved out in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the said act would not apply. We say so, because, if a literal interpretation were to be given to the said proviso, then it would risk being hit by article 14 (the equality clause enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution). It is well-settled that the courts should always endeavour to uphold the Constitutional validity of a provision and, in doing so, the provision in question may have to be read down, as pointed out above, in arun Kumar (supra).

    xxx xxx xxx

    xxx

    58. In conclusion, we may say that the expression "charitable purpose", as defined in Section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said act. It is also clear that if the literal interpretation is given to the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said act, then the proviso would be at risk of running fowl of the principle of equality enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration. In both the activities, in the nature of trade, commerce or business or the activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, the dominant and the prime object

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top