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

ITA 1260/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2025AY 2017-1822 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 AY 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. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding on ground 4 that once exemption is granted under Section 10(23C)(iv), there is no limit to the amount of accumulation, no requirement for trustee resolutions, and no need to file Form 10 specifying the purpose. The only condition is that accumulated funds must be utilized for the trust's objects within five years. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the utilization of accumulated funds. 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 (AY) 2015-16 to 2018-19. The assessee, Maharashtra Energy Development Agency (MEDA), a society 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the assessee's claim, following previous ITAT decisions for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The AO's addition of Rs. 7,36,57,999/- to the income was based on the difference in the 'Development Fund' balance between two financial years, treating it as income on a receipt basis. The assessee contended that these funds were corpus donations and that MEDA acted as a government agent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the cancellation of registration and denial of exemption are independent actions under the Act, allowing exemption denial even if registration under Section 10(23C)(iv) continues? 2. Whether exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) can be denied for a specific AY if the assessee trust has not followed the mandate of the section, despite continuing registration? 3. Whether the net increase in the 'Development Fund' is income of the assessee available for application during the year, considering it was not a voluntary contribution or donation and thus not a corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d)? 4. Whether, after denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv), the benefit of accumulation can only be allowed under Section 11, as per Form 10 filed by the assessee? Assessee's contentions (as inferred from the CIT(A)'s order and the Tribunal's discussion): The assessee argued that the registration under Section 10(23C)(iv) was valid and had not been withdrawn, making the AO's denial of exemption beyond his powers. They also contended that they were acting as an agent of the government and collected fees as per government directions. Regarding the development fund, it was argued that these were not voluntary contributions or donations but corpus funds, and MEDA was merely a custodian. For accumulation, it was argued that under Section 10(23C), there is no limit to accumulation, no need for trustee resolutions, and no need to file Form 10, provided the funds are utilized for trust objects within five years. Revenue's contentions (as inferred from the grounds of appeal): The Revenue argued that cancellation of registration and denial of exemption are independent actions. They contended that exemption can be denied if the mandate of Section 10(23C)(iv) is not followed, even if registration continues. They also argued that the net increase in the development fund was income and not a corpus donation, and that if exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) is denied, accumulation benefits should follow Section 11.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

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 wh

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 →