M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

lil fHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGi\NA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY r.T.T.A. NO. 555 556 0F 2013 l.T.T.A. Nos.2 143 and I,T.T A. Nrf. 500 0F 2006 293 of 2O14 I,T.T,A.NO. 500 0F 2006 1lncrnr.iaxTribunalAppealUrrderSection260AoiLllt:llt..'rlr.'TaxAct.against t,re order ol tht Income 'l ax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Berrch ' i! '' H1'derabad in ['l A ljtr. 0,57 ' 1..l,:.abad , 2005 . lor assessment Year 200l-2001 'lat.'' '()-06-2006 prelened irsarrrst th0 r)t,.:.t t)f tlic Clon.rmissioner of lncome Tar ( Appcals I V ' I{:-derabad in lrppealNoltirrr'\l)lT(t'.)-llCIT(A)-IV/05-06dated08-()9-20()5prcl'erredagainstthe (.rr k'r t,l'tlt '. r. I)ilcclcr ol-Income Tax (E) ' tlydetabaC datcd i l llr':l{ 05 I'AN/(ilR No' ,ir, '.jr.,\07(l l\l \-55 lril/S. l,latir,nai ll'cademy Of Constructio n' lzzal Nagar.Viilaoe Lint ampally Mandal' tt R.Distrrct, Hvderabad, *p]f,;lil";H"idlC"'i"iiitt'taj cJntnetd ' c i chari' ased €;4 years. S/o Sri C. Padmanabhan [t€.tween: Al lE ...APPELLANT ..RESPONDENT Assistant Llirectcr Of lncome Tax(Exemptions)-1 ' Hyderabad Oc,unsiel f c,r the Appellant: SRI S' RAVI (lounsel for the Respondent: Ms' K' MAMATA

(- 2.- '- r.T.T.A.NO. sss oF 2013 ([ncr,nr'iax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 - A ot ihe Irrcr,nre'fax Act. against Lle order ot'the Income Tax Appellate I'ribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' A '. Hyderabad in ITA |.lo- 1035 Hl derabad I 2008 . for assessment Year 2005-200(r Jated I l-09-2009 prrlclrcd al-air si the Older of the Commissioner of lncome [a\ ( Appeals ) - IV , Ilydcrahad dated 30-05-2008 in Appeal No. 0l2l/ADIT (E) -t / C.l.l . ( A) - IV I 2007-08 1: rc fi:rrr:d arr:rin-t thcOrdero{ the Deputy Director of Income'[ar (l i l. Hyderabad dated i7. 1l-100i l'.\'i/CtR No. N- 055 Between: llis l\ati:r:a Acaderny Of Construction, NAC Campus Kondapur Post, Oyberabad I-iyderabad.' rep., by its Director General Sri Pradip Kumar Agarual' Sio.Late Om irakash , agdd 64'years, R/o. Plot No.6, Road No 10. Noor Nagar, []arr;ara H lis. Hyderabad - 500034. ...APPELLANT Irhl[) Deputy Drrecior Of lncome Tax(Exemptions)-1 , Ayakar Bhavan Basheer Bagh, llyderabarl ...RESPONOENT LT.T.A.M.P.No . 829 of 2013 : Petiticn Under Section 151 of CPC praying for the aforesaid reasons s.tated in tne accompanying affidavit filed therewith' the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings pursuant to the order crf the assessment dated 27 -11-2OO7 Oc,unsel lc,r the Appellant: SRI S' RAVI Oounsel lor the Respondent: Ms' K' MAMATA

<- ) LT.'l .L.NCl. 5sri OF 20't3 (lnconie IaxTribunal Appeal Under Section 260 - A of the Irrconre'I'ax Act, against the ordcr o:'tl'c !ncorre far Appcllate Tribunal. Hldcrabad Bench ' .4. '. Hyderabad in ITA |Jo. 192 ilrdcrabad I 2009 , for assessment Y ear 2006-2007 da(ed 10-09-2009 pref'erred against lhe Order of the Commissioner of Income l'ax ( Appeals ) - IV , Flydt:rabad rl:Lr,.ri I5-ll-2008 in Appeal No. 0127/ADIT (E) -I / ('.i i'. ( A) - tV 12007-08 Lrrelbncd against the Order ofthe Deputy Dircctor of Income Tax (E) I , Hyderabad dated 27-08-200E P.\'iiGIR No. AAAAB0749M Retween: Irl/s. National Academy Of Construction, NAC Campus. Kondapur Post, Cyberabari 1-yderabad. rep., by its Director General Sri Praclip Kumar Agarwal, S/o.Late ()n ,r.akash . aged 64 years, R/o. Plot No.6, Road No. 10. Noor Nagar, E\aniara l1 l,s l-',vderabad - 500034. ...APPELLANT I\ND [)e pr.rfy p ier.lrc, Of In':oms lrr,aremptions)-1, Ayakar Bhavan l3asheer Bagh, llyderaoar: ...RESPONDENT 1.1'.T.P,.M.!.N:. 830 of 2013 : Petition Under Section 151 of CPC praying for the aforesaid reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble Court may be grk>ased t: pas;s an order staying all further proceedings pursuant to the order crf the ass.essn-rent dated 27 -08-2008. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S. RAVI Oc,uns;el lr-.r L rrr Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATA

7 l.T.T'.+. \O. 2 OF 2014 (rnconrc t'ax Tribunal Appeat Under Section260 - H oftN\tfttntgTtx A.c\. ,or',""t trc ordcr oi'tf,r' Irtcomc lax Appellate lribunal. [{ydcrabad Bench'B'. Hyderabad in ITA No. 764 i Llyderabad I 2012 , lor asscssment Year 2007-2008 dated 0E-03-2013 pref'erred againsl the Order ot'the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appcals ) Guntur dated 27 -l'|-',t-Ol I irr : LA No. 0l-16i08-09 prelerred against tlte Order of tlre Deputy Director of Income Tax (E) . I , I{yderabad dated 22-12-2008 PAN/GIR No. AAAAN0749M Eletween: M/s- National Academy Of Construction, NAC Camp-us, K-ondapur Post, CyneraUaO Hyderabad.'rep., by its Director General SJi Pradip Kumar Agarwal' S;iofaie Om F.akash , agdd Oa-years, Ryo. PIot No.6, Road No 10 Noor Nagar, Elanjara H I;s, -i,rderabad - 500034. ...APPELLANT/ ApPellant AND l\sst- Directcr Of lncorne Tax(Exemptions), Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, llyderabatt ,..RESPONDENT l.A. NO. 1 0F 2014 Petrticrr under section 151 of cPC praying for the aforesaid reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings pursuant to the order crf the ass.ess nrent dated 22-'12'2008-- Counsel f or the Appellant: SRI S. RAVI Counsel for tne Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATA

I.T.T.A. NO. 143 ()F 2014 (lnconre '[ax l'ribunal Appeal tJnder Scction 2(i0 A oi thc Inconre l-ax Act, against tire order oi'the Income 'fax Appcllate Tribunal, Hydcrabad Bench ' A ', Hyderabad in ITA No. 627 / tlydcrabad, / 2007 , for assessmenr Year 2004-200,5 dated 1l-09-2009 prc{brred z,r.airrst the Order ol thc Conrntissioner of [ncoure lirx ( Appeals ) - IV Hyderabad dated 30-03-2007 in Appeal No. 0548/DDIT (E) - I / C.l l' ( A) -lV I 2006- 07 preferrcd aqainst the Order oflhe Deputl, Director ofIncolnc lar (E) . Hyderabad dated 27 12-2006 ,'A\iGlR No. AAAAI]0794M Between: ll/s. Naticna Acaderny Of Construction, NAC Canrpus. Kondapur Post, Oyberabad. Fiyderabad. rep., by its Director General Sri Pradip Kumar Agarwal, S/o.Late Om Prakash , aged 64 years, R/o. Plot No.6, Road No. 10. Noor Nagar, Banjara Hilis, Hyderabad - 500034. ...APPELLANT AND l\sst. Director (Jf lncome Tax(Exemptions) - I , Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, liyderabad ..RESPONDENT |.T.T.A.M P. r'ro. 129 0F 2014 Petition Under Section 151 of CPC praying for the aforesaid reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble Court may be Fleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the assessment dated 27 -12-2006. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S. RAVI Oc,unsiel tor th o Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATA 2

o L1'. 1'.ir. 'iO. 293 OF 2014 (lncome l'ax Tribunal Appeal Under Scction 2(r0 - A of thc lncorne Tax Act, against the order of the Income 'l'ax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' A '. l{yderabad in ITA l'{o. 800 ,' ilyderabad, I 2006 , lor asscssment Year 200J-2(X)-1 dated I t-09-2009 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax ( Appeals ) - IV Ilyderabad daterl 14-07-2006 in Appeal No. 0020/ADtI(El)-L C'.I.'i. ( A)-IV/2006- C'7 prefered against the Order o[ the Asst. Dircctor of Inconre 1 ax ( U) - I . Hyderabad dated 28-02-2006 PAN/GIR No. AAAA0794M/ N-055 . EBetween: M/s. National Academy Of Construction, NAC Campus, Kondapur Post, Cyberabarj, Hyderabad. rep., by its Director General Sri Pradip Kumar Agarwal, S/o.Late Om Prakash , aged 64 years, R/o. Plot No. 6, RoaC No 10. Noor Nagar, [ianjara Hrlis, Hyderabad - 500034. ...Ai']PE -LANT I\ND lisst. Director Of lncome Tax(Exemptions) - | , Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, llyderabad ..RESPONDENT |.T.T.A.M.P. NO. 305 0F 2014 Petition Under Section '151 of CPC praying for the aforesaid reasons s,urted in the accompanying affidavit filed therewith, the Horr'bie Court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings pursuant to the order of the assessment dated 28-02-2006. Oc,unsel for the Appellant: SRI S. RAVI Counsel forthe Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATA 'l tre Court delivered the following: Common Judgment

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSITY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A.No.5OO of 2O06 I.T.T.A.No.555 556 of 2013 I.T.T.A.Nos.2 143 and 293 of2Ol4 COMMON JUDGMENT i (per Hon'ble Srt Justice P.Sam Koshg) We have heard Sri S.Ravi, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.K.Mamata, learned standing counsel for the respondent. 1. Since all these appeals are of the same assessee and the grounds of appeal being also same, the question of law decided also being the same, all these connected matters are taken up and decided by this common order. For convenience, I.T.T.A.No.5O0 of 2OO6 is taken up as the lead case so far as the facts are concerned. 2. The instant appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the ActJ is frled assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (B) (for short, 'the Tribunal') in I.T.A.T.No. 1067 IHYD /2OOS decided on 30.06.2006 for the Assessment Year 2OO2-2OO3. 3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal disrnissed the appeal of the appellant-assessee aflirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IV, Hyderabad, dated O7.O4.2O05, who in turn had affirmed the order passed by the Assessrrrent Offrcer dated 14.03.2005 after cornpletion of the assessrnent under Section 143(3) determining income of Rs.7,16,56,7OOl-.

8 ::3:: PSK,J & I,NA,J ITTA_500_2006 and batch The substantial object of the above Society was, (i) to establish and form a National Academy for Construction (N.A.C.); (ii) for the service and benefit of the construction and allied industries by creating awareness, imparting training for increasing its relevance to the national level and also ensuring quality to the international standards. The mission statement of the Society also was on similar terms which were primarily to develop the technological advancement in the competitive construction industry which serves India's economical needs. To ensure quality in work adherence, to ensure having long-lasting aesthetical construction. To modernize construction with methodologies, materials and technologies. To encourage their use to upgrade the knowledge and skills of construction engineers, contractors, managers, supervisor and workers and inculcate professionalism, etc. Various Departments of the State Government were admitted as patron members of the appellant society. patron members were required to contribute t 3O lakhs each as a One-Time Membership. However, the only exception was two private limited companies, i.e., Larsen & Toubro Limited and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited, who were the only two private players who were admitted as patron members. The erstwhile Government of Andhra pradesh had also allotted land of extent 167.30 acres to the appellant_ N.A.C. The Government of Andhra pradesh issued a Government Order, dated 19.05. 1998 and 2O.06.1998 and through the said

PSK.J & LNA.J ITTA 500 2006 and batch G.O., the Covernment decided the sc,urce of revenue for the appellant-N.A.C C)ther than the membership fees it was also ordered that O.25% of the contract vaiue has to be deducted from all the contractor's bill at the time of raising of bills anC its remittance. In addition, certain other State Government bodies, viz., Urban Development Authoritv, tht: Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Cyberabad Development Authority, the Department of Tourism, u,ere also invited to be participants in this project. It is note\,',orthy to mention here that th,: hnancial participation of Larsen & Toubrc Infositv was to the ,3xtent of t.8. i2 crores, i.e., around I i% of the equity share. S. The appellants in between incorporated a joint stock company under the Cornpanies Act, 1956. The said company was known as Hvderabad International Ilxpositions Limited (HITEX). The said compary was incorporateci with an intention of holding exhibitions and also to promote object and mission of the appellant's society. The appellants h.ave been frling their returns periodicallv claiming for exemption on its net service from income tax for the Assessment Y ear 2OO2-2O03, and they have fiied returns claiming exemption of its serv-ice amounting to Rs.7.16 crores. 1O. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Oflicer found that the appellant-N.A.C. has made em investment of Rs- 1.50 crores in the equil.y of HITEX. This, accor-ding to the Assessing Ofhcer, 4

PSK,J & LNA,J ITTA 500 2006 and batch was in violation of Section 1 1(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer had refused to grant exemption under Section 1 I to the appellants and passed the Assessment Order on 14.03.2O05. On account of the fact that the appellant company had made an iavestment of Rs. 1.5 crores into the joint stock company towards eguity, the assessing officer found the same to be in violation of Section I 1 (5) of the Act. I 1. Consequently, the assessing officer taxed the entire surplus of Rs.7.16 crores for the year under consideration. The exemption sotrght for under Section 11 by the appellant company stood rejected. It is this order which was subjected to challenge before the Cornmissioner of Income Tax (Appea-ls) unsuccessfully by the appellants-N.A.C. The appellants were further unsuccessful in their further attempt before the Tribunal while challenging the order Passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea-ls) as well. 12 - According to the appellant, the Tribunat in the course of cot-rfirming the order passed by the CIT Appeals as also the assessing officer's order, reached to a pewerse finding which was ot[s*'i"" not sustainable. According to the appellant, the finding of IT\T is also perverse for the reason that, all that was required to be ensured was whether the income of the society is utilised only for the objects for which the society stands established. As an alte rnative to the argument, it was also contended *y-the appellant

PSK.J & LNA..I ITTA 500 2006 and batch that even if the finding of the Tribun.al u,as to be accepted, the appellant should have been held liable 1:o pay tax only to the extent of the quantum that the riepartment h€,d expended its contribution tow'ards lv{/s. HITEX. In other wor,ls, according to the appellant e..,en if the versicn of ITAT is found to be justi{iable, the income which can be held to be not entitled for exemption would be only to the extent of the investment that the appellant society had contributed in the company M/s. HITEX. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon the Government order dated l9.O:). lggg which was further modiheci vide Governrnent order rlated 20.06.199g. While canvassing his case, so iar as tl.e funds generated by the appellant's establishment are concerlred according to the learned Senior Counsel, since the funds were paid voluntarily by the members and that the entire contrit,ution made by the members became part of the Corpus. Further whatever contributions that have been made by the appellant to M/s. HITBX was from the a-foresaid corpus and was not from the funds of the company. Therefore the appeliant could not have been denied exemption under Section I 1 , as sought for by the appellant. That the contribution made from the corpus to M/s. HITEX cannot be in violation of Section 1 1 (5) of the Act. 6

14 i:7ii PSK,J & LNA,J ITTA_500 2006 and batclr It was the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants were entitled to accumulat e 2}o/o of their income which in the instant case comes to around Rs.2.2 crores and it is only an amount of Rs. 1.5 crores which has been invested by the appellant. Hence, the provision of Section I 1 (5) of the Income Tax Act would not had been attracted in the instant case. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the aPpellant that even otherwise, the amount of Rs. 1.5 crores spent by the appellant towards HITEX was the amount collected by way of membership fees and which again is a capital receipt and therefore both, section 11 (5) and Section 13 (l) (d) of the Act, would not be applicable. 15- Learned counsel appearing for the department on the other harrd justifying the order of the ITAT, contended that since the order of the assessing ofhcer has already been subjected to scrutiny and challenge, there is hardly any scope left for the High Court in the instaxt case, particularly, in exercise of its powers under Secli6n 260 A ol the Act. It was the contention of the learned cotlrrsel for the Revenue that since there is already a concurrent finding of fact, no substantial question of la-w as such remains to be adjr-rdicated upon through the present appeal. 16. According to the learned counsel for the Revenue, the very purpose of constituting the company - M/s. HITDX was with an

::8:: PSK,.I & I,NA,J ITI'A-500-2006 and batch commercial intention. It u,as the content,ion of the department that the management of HITEX is ear:ning huge arnounts of revenue from the hundred acres of land which HITEX has received from the appellant company. it was iurther r:ontention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the appellant company have already parted hundred acres of their land, (which they had received from the Government) to M/ s. HITEX, which itself establishes the fact that they have deviated frorn the object and mission of the society. 17. Further, in turn HITEX has gone cc,mmercial by collecting huge amounts of rents by way of regularly organizing exhibitions over the land of the appellant u,hich stood ;rllotted to M/s. HITEX by appellant. Learned counsei lor the Revr:nue. further contended that since there was a deviation from the object and mission by the society, the assessing officer has righrly refused the exemptiorr as claimed under Section I 1 of the Act. 18. Having heard the contentions ptrt forth on either side and on perusal or records, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the admitted factual matrix of the case. Admittedly, the appellant is et society e stablished with a specific purpose, ot2ject and mission. According to the appell;rnt, it was not established to earn profits, but was u,ith an intention of promoting the quality of construction and bringing international standards. The said ot2ject and mission could have been ac nieved only by undertaacing

PSK,J & LNA,J ITTA 500 2006 and batch activities for the promotion of education, training, research and imparting professionalism and skill formation at a levels of construction. It was with an intention of exercising and expanding the object and mission that the society constituted a joint venture _ M/s. HITEX with an intention of achieving the mission and object of the societ5z in a better manner as is claimed by the appellant. 19. However, in contravention to the aforesaid mission and objects, what is apparently visible from tJle pleadings of the appellants is that, the Government initially had all0tted Rs. 167 crores of land to the appellants in achieving the goal. However, the appellants in addition to the establishment of a joint venture _ M/s. HITEX, also parted hundred acres of their land to M/s. HITEX. The newly established joint venture i.e. M/s. HITEX started utilizing the land for purpose of holding exhibitions of all natures and in the process, has been earning huge amounts in the form of rental on the same. It is also learnt that HITEX has also used the said land for commercial purpose by allotting the land to other commercial establishments. Thus, earning profits is in clear violation of the purpose, mission and object of the society. It was this aspect, which was dl. ly considered by the assessing olficer at the first instance and by the CIT Appeals later on, and the two orders were further also aJfirmed by the ITAT. Thus, there is a concurrent 9

:: l0:: PSK.J & LNA,J IT.fA 500 2006 and batch hnciing of the two appeilant forums based on factual matrix available on record and most of which beLng undisputed. 20. As regards the alternative prayer of the apoellant of at least refusal of exemption uncier :iection 11 of the Act be restrictbd to the extent of investment made by the appellant in the joint venture unit i.e. Mls. HITEX, would not be acceptable for the reason that with the amount of investrnent already carried out by the appellant in M/s. HITEX, coupl:d with the fact that the appellant have parted hundred acres cl- land allotted to them to be used by the said joint venture - M/s. FIITEX lor gaining rentai and other income. The said joint ventule has beeo earning huge anounts of income from the said land by giving it on rent for many other purposes, in addition to, holding of exhibitions, etc. The income of which, or the profrt earned by the joint venture also being shared with the appellants to some extent also rvould lead to the contravention of the object, purpose and mission of the society with which, it was established. 21 . The appellant contended that the amounts lying in the corpus was from the voluntar5r :ontributions made by the members. Therefore, the investmont towards the equity of M/s.HITEX by the assessee shouid n,tt be treated as al investment or a deposit within the meaning 13 (f ) (d). It is only channelizing of its funds and that too from the corpus which has- been received

::l l:: PSK,J & LNA,J ITTA 500 2006 and batch exclusively from the membership fees collected from its members' The said contention of the appellant cannot be accepted for the suttple reason that the Government Instructions/ Government orders on the basis of which the appellalt company was receiving fu\ds were no longer exists as the same were struck dovrn by this Court. 22. It is relevant to mention that Section 13(1Xd) of ttre Act Prohibits exemption of any sum invested or deposited otherwise than anY mode specified under Section 1 1(5)of the Act' The aPpellant society has been registered under (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration e><emption under Section 8OG of the Income Tax Act as well as' In view of the investment of Rs.1'5 crore in HITEX Society' which is established with commercial intend, the Appellant-Society clearly deviated from its objects, for whickr tkre society has been established. The appellant-Society by acting contrary to its objects cQrrnot claim exemption under Section l1 of the Act' The deviation' cQntravention, disentitles the society from claiming the b enefrt/ exemption under Section 1 1 of the Act' tt is pertinent to rote that Section 13 (1)(d) as amended by the Finance Act' 1983' P riovides ttrat the income of any charitable or religious trust or irrstitution will not be entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and I 2, if certain conditions stipulated therein are not complied with ' Andhra Pradesh Act and also has

::12:: PSK.J & Li.{A..1 ITI'A 500 2006 and barch 23. In 199g, the Government cf Ar:dhra pradesh established the National Academy of Construction INAC) by orders in G.O.Ms. No. I O3, Trarsport, Roads & BuildirLgs (R.lIl) Department, dated i6.6.1998, 'a.ith the objective of 6ch!sr7!ng development of the construction inciustry, and engaging in activities for the promoticn of education, training, research, profe:;sionalism and skill formation in the construction industry. So as to ensure adequate availability of funds to NAC, the Government of Andhra pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.92, T.R&B (B.I) Department, Cared 19.S.1998 directing the Executive Engineers to conclude supplemental agreements vvith the contractors for works under execution, and for those works to be entrusted in future, to deduct O.2i;%o ol the gross amount of the bill ai,d remit it to the ICTI. 24. About two years aJter G.O.Ms.No.92 was issued, the Government issued yet another order uide G.O.Ms. No.6 I , T.R&B (R.III) Department, dated ll.4.2OOO, clirecting inclusion of a clatrse in the tender notices and agreements lbr recovery of O.25yo from the gross bill of the contractors, with a view to mobilize funds for the NAC. A similar order, being G.O.Ids.No.98, Irrigation & CAD Department, dated S.7.2O00, was issued directing inclusion of such a clause from 1.6.200O. 25. G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 19.0S.1,)98, Department and c.O.Ms.No.9g, da ted issued by rhe R&.E} O5.07.2O0O issued Lry

::13:: PSK,J & LNA,J lTl'A_500_2006 and batch Irrigation & CAD Department, were challenged by hling Writ Petition No.23750 of 2O2O and batch and the learned single Judge of ttris court, vide order dated rg.oz .2oos, set aside the two impugned Government Orders holding that the impugned deduction of o.25vo from gross bills as contribution to NAC, -i.s not traceable to ang lano for the time being in forcd , and that the resolution of the Builders Association of India itself, "does not take autay lLghts of petttioners to challenge the impugned. ord.er more particularlg uhen said G.O. is rssued uitLaut ang statutory autharitgl . 26. Challenging the same, the State of Andhra pradesh and others Iiled Writ Appeal Nos.2l 17 of 2OO5 and batch and 76O of 20O8 and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Appeals vide order dated 2l.OZ.2O 1O with the observation that .it is very clear that the Government itself contemplated the mandatory contributions to be made by the contractors. The law does not permit such extraction by forceful contributions. As rightly held by the learned shgle Judge, the Govemment Orders lack legal sanction and, therefore, they cannot be sustained." 27. In view of passing of G.O.Ms.No.92 dated, 19.05.199g, the corpus amount generated by the appellant is not voluntar5r contribution and thus, the contention of the appellant that rnvestment of Rs. l.5 crore in HITEX be treated fund is not sustainable. as group corplrs

:: l4:: PSK..I & I-NA..I ITTA -s00 2006 and batch 28. The appellant is a society, registered under An<ihra Pradesh (Telangana A^rea) F:blic Societies Registration Act and is registered under Section 12A and exempted under Section BOG of Income Ta;e Act. i961. The principal object of the ssciety was, uscd tc irnpart training, promotion of education, rest:arch etc, in the held of construction and allied industries. Howt:ver, contrary to the objects of the societ..,, an amount of Rs.1.5 crore was invested in HITEX, the objects of rvhich are not similar to that off the appellant society and in fact, it is also invoived in using the land for commercial purpose. Apari from investment of l?s. 1.5 crore in HITEX, the appetlant society had also transferred 100 acres of lanC on lease out of 167.30 Acres of land which was allotted by the Government to the Appellant. The Assessing OIIict:r had taken note of transfer oi 10O acres by the appeflant societrr to HITEX, hcrr'ever, in his wisdom, he did not further enquire into the terms and conditions of such transfer ald as to whether lease rental or any amounts are being received by the appellant society. 29. Thus, investment of Rs.1.5 crore arrd transfer of 10O acres of land by the Appellant to HITEX squarely covered under Section 13(lxd) of the Act, 196 I and, therefore, the appellant society made themselves rlisentitle to the beneht under Section 11 of the Act' 196 1 in view of violation of section 1 I (5) of the Act, 1 96 1 '

::lS:: I,SK.J & LNA I 30. The Dethi High Court in DIT (Dxempr,"r,,1,"!*))'r:::;::rt::: Trust,r deart with an issue of whefier the assessee violated Section t3(txcxii) read with Section r3(3) of the IT Acr. The courr ";;;; the contentions of the Revenue that the real motive of the assessee was to advance its surplus monies to AplL without charging any interest and since ApIL was a prohibited person within the meaning of Section 13(3), it was held that the assessee has committed a violation of the provisions of Section 13 of the Income tax Acr and therefore, the Trust was not eligible for the endre exemption under Section I I of the IT Act.l3l 31 The High Court of Kerala rn Agappa Child Centre v_ CITtTt dealt with a similar issue. The Assessee a public charitable I I, trust, purchased a refrigerator and kept it at the residence o[ its managing trustee. The Court held that the Managing Trustee was one o[ the prohibited persons as per Section l3(3). Therefore, the Court held that the entire exemption of the trust is to be denied. 32. In view of the facts e.xplained above, the appellant failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Bench with the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 33. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm view that the question of law frarned by the Court while admitting the petition, so also the question of law st.essed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellalt during the course of the arguments deserves to be

:; 16:: PSK.J & t-NA.J ITTA 500 2006 and batch decided in the negative. Thus, all these l\ppeals deserves to be and are accordingly rejected, con{irming the concurrent frnding of facts arrived at by the two forums below. No ol:der as to costs' Jt As a sequei, misceiianeous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closed ,/TRUE COPY'I SN,- M. VIJAYA BHA JOINT REGIS R R SKE T SECTION CFFICE R one Fair ".o,rr:? lff ff{:i:rT,',,11f:i'.:ilto" KosHY c n e F a i r c o p y to r. i ffl i 5,:Jl.'.ir',lt *f ** ARAY A N A AL I s H ErrY To [. Th,: Intorne 1'ar Appcllatc Tribunal' tlyderabad Bench' B " H.vrlcr:rilatl 2. Th,: I r':i trrne -['ax Appcllatc Tribunal, Ilyderabad Bench "A" [2.Onc C() :o lt/ls ' 13.1vg,;. 6:;-r loPies [{Y dere bad' i. The (- otnrnissioncr of incorre Tai ( A'ppeals ) - tV Hvrlerabad' 4.'Ih,: ,rr.t. Directorof IncotneTax([])-I'flyderatrad' 3. The I)epul-v l)ircctor of lncome Tax lp) ' Ilyderabad' 6. The Conrmissioner of Income Tax ( l\ppeals ) Guntur ?. '1 1 LR C ''Dies g- The uncrer secretary, union of lndia Ministry of Law, Juslice and cornpany qffarrs l'lew Delht , +H ff :,.""' il ; S'd:i'il?1,ti:"1: "il",lrl3i:fl".1 is h c o u rt ro r th e s tate or l0.Ont: C(l ro SRt R S ASSOCIATES' ACvocate [OPUCI 11.One CC io Srr CH PUSHYAM KIRAN' Advocate (OPUC) Lul K MAMATA Advocat€'| [OPUC]

HIGH COURT PSKJ & LNAJ DATED:31 l0gl2023 1.,,R. Cc'0"' ,to tle marked CON{N,TON JI.]DGN{ENT I T.l .L. Nrl. :iiii l)F :)(lG6 r.T.T.A. NO. 555 556 0F 2013 l.T.T.A. Nos. 2 i43 anci 293 oi ?Ai4 r\ll the irDll( als are re.iected lt, .- S'i r.:-,: C , '-) 2E [[1 2m \,.; \v ithout 'ia) j: j LD 2n .i^, i ,i 1