Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 156 - AT - Income TaxEligibility for exemption u/s. 11 - Assessing Officer has acknowledged that the appellant has carried out activities related to the consultancy, public awareness and research in the field of renewable energy, his view that such activities were not of general public utility - Held that:- Activities were not of general public utility, is not a correct as the various activities carried out by the appellate in the field of education training, public awareness, policy advocacy and research in the cause of sustainable development and environmental protection have been discussed and in the absence of the any specific negative finding by the Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Pune, it has been held that his action in cancelling the registration granted to the appellant trust u/s 12A(a) by invoking the provision of sec. 12AA(3) of the IT Act was not justified. Activities of the assessee extend beyond Indian geographical boundaries - Held that:- The Revenue has not been able to show that the assessee has carried out any of its activities abroad. One of the essential conditions for claiming benefit of exemption u/s. 11 is that the activities have to be carried out by the trust in India. In case the charitable activities of the assessee are beyond India territory, the assessee will not be eligible for the benefit of section 11. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his orders has observed that there is no material on record to show that the activities of the assessee extend outside India. Trustees are the Directors of the companies from which the assessee has purchased windmills - Held that:- when the question of denying the benefit or exemption u/s. 11 to the trust arises, the decision cannot be taken on such assumptions or possibilities. Hard facts and evidences have to be brought on record by the Assessing Officer before invoking sec. 13(1)(c) for denying the benefit of sec. 11. More so when courts are of the opinion that the onus to invoke the exception contained in section 13(1)(c) is on revenue. For the discussions made above and in the law which demands the Assessing Officer to discharge the onus of application of sec. 13(1)(c) for denying the benefit of sec. 11, it has to be held that in the face of the fact that no evidences have been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to hold the payment to Suzlon and Enercon as undue or excessive, the finding that there is some infringement of sec. 13(1)(c) is erroneous. The Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record adequate materials which can support his findings. Excessive remuneration/perquisites paid to Shri G.M. Pillai, Director General of the assessee - Held that:- Undisputedly, Shri G.M. Pillai is an employee of the assessee trust and not its trustee. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(2)(c) are not attracted.There is no bar under the law that charitable trust or institutions should not be efficiently or professionally managed. So long as the institution is not engaged in making private profit or its income has not been diverted for the benefit of interested persons, there is no reason to deny an assessee the benefit of sec. 11, so long as the other statutory provisions are satisfied. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's contentions that the salary and remuneration paid to. the Director General is more than what should have been paid is held to have no basis and cannot be sustained - Decided against revenue.
|