DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUMBAI

ITA 1258/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2025AY 2015-1622 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that all grounds raised by the Revenue were covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which was followed by the CIT(A). Regarding grounds 1 and 2, it was an admitted fact that MEDA had been granted approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, and this approval was still valid. Therefore, the AO could not deny the exemption claimed by the assessee. For ground 3, concerning the addition on account of the difference in the Development Fund balance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directions, which were in line with the Tribunal's previous observations, stating that development funds were not to be treated as income of the assessee. Regarding ground 4, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that once exemption is granted under Section 10(23C)(iv), there is no limit to the amount of accumulation, no requirement to file trustee resolutions for such accumulation, and no need to file Form 10 specifying the purpose of accumulation. The only condition is that accumulated funds must be utilized for the objects of the trust within five years. The CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the utilization of accumulated funds and re-compute income if necessary was confirmed. Consequently, all grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 to 2018-19. The assessee, Maharashtra Energy Development Agency (MEDA), a society and public charitable trust formed by the Maharashtra State Government for developing non-conventional renewable energy sources, had claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the exemption, treating receipts credited to the 'Development Fund' as income and initiating penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim, following previous ITAT decisions for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. The AO's denial of exemption was based on the assessee allegedly carrying on business activities and the objects being of general public utility, hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). The CIT(A) also held that the net increase in the 'Development Fund' was not taxable income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that cancellation of registration and denial of exemption are independent actions, and exemption can be denied even if registration under Section 10(23C)(iv) continues? 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) can be denied for a particular AY if the mandate of the section is not followed, even if registration continues? 3. Whether, on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the net increase under 'Development Fund' is not income of the assessee available for application, ignoring that these receipts were not voluntary contributions or donations and thus not corpus donations under Section 11(1)(d)? 4. Whether, on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that once exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) is denied, the benefit of accumulation can only be allowed under Section 11, to the extent mentioned in Form 10 as per trustee resolutions? Assessee's Contentions (as inferred from CIT(A)'s order and Tribunal's discussion): - MEDA is an agent of the Government and therefore not taxable. - Exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) was granted and not withdrawn, so the AO cannot deny it. - Development funds are not income but corpus funds, and MEDA is merely a custodian/trustee. - Under Section 10(23C), there is no limit to accumulation, no need for trustee resolutions, and no need to file Form 10 for accumulation purposes, provided funds are utilized for trust objects within five years. Revenue's Contentions (as stated in grounds of appeal): - Cancellation of registration and denial of exemption are independent actions. - Exemption can be denied if the mandate of Section 10(23C)(iv) is not followed, even if registration continues. - Net increase in 'Development Fund' is taxable income as it's not a voluntary contribution or corpus donation. - If exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) is denied, accumulation benefits are governed by Section 11.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(iv),Section 11(1)(d),Section 11,Section 2(15),Section 10(23C),Section 12A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Ms. Darshana (Hybrid)
For Respondent: Shri Bare Ganesh Sudhakar
Hearing: 23/04/2025Pronounced: 28/04/2025

PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate impugned orders of even date 27/12/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Ys.2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-

19.2.

In all these appeals, the common grounds which have been raised reads as under:-

1.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the cancellation of registration and denial of exemption are independent actions under the provisions of the Act and exemption for a particular assessment year can be denied even

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 10(23C)(iv)

All 149 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(iv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →