DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. MAYO COLLEGE OLD BOYS ASSOCIATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 945 / 2011HC Delhi10 August 20111 pages
For Petitioner: ABHISHEK MARATHA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that organizing a golf tournament with advertisements, as part of its broader educational objectives, did not alter the assessee's charitable character. The fact that it continued to hold Section 12A registration also supported its charitable status.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a registered charitable institution, had its Section 80G exemption denied because it earned income from advertisement and golf tournaments. The ITAT, however, set aside this denial, holding the assessee entitled to exemption.

What were the issues?

Whether income from advertisements and golf tournaments disqualifies an institution from Section 80G exemption, and if its primary charitable object is maintained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12AA,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 10.08.2011 Present: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant with Ms Teena Sharma, Advocate. . +ITA 945/2011 . The respondent who is an alumni of Mayo College, has been given registration under Section 12A read with Section 12AA (1) (b) of the Act with effect from 01.04.1999 and order to this effect was passed on 15.09.2000. Thus, it is registered as charitable institution. Likewise, the respondent has also been granted exemption under Section 80G of the Act from 27.03.2000. Such exemption is given for a particular period which is renewed from time to time. Last exemption was up to 31.03.2009. Thereafter, the respondent made an application for renewal of this exemption under Section 80G of the Act on 15.09.2009. This was, however, denied by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) for the reason that it had received income under the head ?Advertisement and golf tournaments income? and it has also incurred substantial expenditure on this activity only. The respondent took the matter in appeal. The ITAT vide impugned order has set aside the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi, holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption. Two aspects are highlighted by the Tribunal in this behalf which are: (i) the main . . object of the respondent/assessee is to encourage education in broader sense and one of such activity was organizing golf tournament which resulted in some income from advertisement and also expenditure on the advertisement, would not alter the basic character of t he assessee as charitable organization as this was full of educational activities. Needless to mention, by the very nature of this association, holding of such advertisement tournament for the members i.e. ?Old Boys Association? would be permissible and that factor alone cannot become reason for holding that the respondent has incurred expenditure in the activities of commercial nature. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of ICAI Accounting Research Foundation Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption), 321 ITR 73 and rightly so, (ii) the assessee/respondent continues to enjoy the registration under Section 12A of the Act which means that the Income Tax department itself holds respondent to be an institute of charitable nat ure so long as it can subsists. Exemption under Section 80G of the Act could not be enjoyed on the ground that the respondent did not carry on any charitable activity. No question of law arises. The appeal is hereby dismissed. A.K. SIKRI, J. . M.L.MEHTA, J. August 10, 2011 awanish . . #29-31 and 35, 36

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →