M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 172/BANG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 August 2023AY 2017-1836 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the primary activity of the trust was charitable, and the microfinance activity was ancillary to its charitable objects of poverty alleviation. The interest charged was to cover administrative costs and potential defaults, not for profit. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not attracted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, provided microfinance to Self-Help Groups (SHGs) comprising rural poor women. The authorities below denied exemption under Section 11, holding that the microfinance activity was business-like and hit by the proviso to Section 2(15).

What were the issues?

Whether the microfinance activity undertaken by the charitable trust for SHGs constitutes business activity, thereby disentitling it from exemption under Section 11 due to the proviso to Section 2(15).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13(8),Section 2(15),Section 11(4A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(12)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA
For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-2, Panaji for A.Y. 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal:

“1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law. equity, weight of evidence. probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The learned CIT [A] is not justified in upholding the disallowance of the exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act,

Page 2 on the ground that the activities of the appellant are hit by the provisions of section 13[8] rws the proviso to section 2

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →