Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 18 - HC - Income TaxBenefit of exemption u/s 11 denied - education institution - profit motive - commercial activity - transaction with the specified persons - Held that:- Insofar as the lease rent is concerned, the revenue had not brought on record any evidence to suggest that such lease rent was either excessive or even higher than the normal market rate prevailing in the region at the relevant time. In fact, the assessee produced material to show that a part of the land belonging to the trustees was leased to one Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. at the rate of ₹ 5/- per sq. ft. as against the rate of ₹ 1/- per sq. ft. being paid by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) discarded such comparison on the ground that the area occupied by the Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. was much smaller, as compared to the area leased to the assessee. The size of the land under occupation may have some bearing on the lease rent which the land may fetch, nevertheless, in the present case, the difference of rate between two cases was nearly five times. Without there being any further material on record, the Commissioner could not have come to the conclusion that the rent paid by the assessee to the trustees for the leased land, was excessive. Similarly, the assessee pointed out to the authorities that it needed to raise a fund of ₹ 2 crores by taking loan from the financial institutions for which permission was also granted by the Charity Commissioner. The Bank had offered loan at the interest rate of ₹ 12.50% per annum which would also require giving securities and executing documents. As against this the trustees offered unsecured loan at the interest rate of ₹ 9% per annum. Here again, the CIT (Appeals) discarded such comparison by contending that the trustees themselves would have fetched lower fixed deposit rate from the Bank. For multiple reasons, this was not a correct approach. First, we are trying to ascertain whether the trust was paying the interest at the rate higher than the market rate. What the trustees could have got from the Bank was not correct comparison. Secondly, the trustees were offering unsecured loan, which with inherent risks, invites higher interest than the bank loans. Last but not the least, if the trustees had parked their money in the Bank fixed deposits, the liquidities and security of such investment would be much higher than lending substantial amount to the trust without a collateral security. Section 13(1)(c) of the Act does not prohibit normal transactions between the trust and the persons referred to in sub-section (3) of the Act. What is relevant is the use or application of any part of the income of the trust directly or indirectly for the benefits of any such person referred to in subsection (3). Mere payment of lease rent or interest on borrowed funds, without there being any element of such payments being excessive or unreasonable compared to the normal rates prevailing, would not fall within the mischief of section 13(1)(c). - Decided in favour of the assessee
|