A.C.I.T.(EXEMPTIONS),CIR-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, KOLKATA

The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO. The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in holding the objects of the assessee in advancement of any other public utility falls within the ambit of the definition for charitable purpose as laid down u/s 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The ld. AR submits that the issue is covered in assessee’s own case by an order dated 02.12.2014 in for A.Y.2009-10 and the same was followed for A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 vide its order dated 15.06.2016 and referred to page nos. 1 to 56 for A.Y.2009-10 and pages 57-69 for A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 which are placed in paper book.

Heard rival submissions and perused materials on record. We find that the assessee was duly registered u/s 12AA of the Act and the main objectives of the assessee is to promote and protect the trade, commerce and industries and in particular which Indians are engaged or concerned. Apart from the activities the assessee conducted environment management meetings, conferences and seminars and issuance of certificate of origin being the activities stated to be “services in relation to trade, commerce or business were all well covered by the main object of the assessee. The Coordinate bench of this Tribunal for A.Y.2008-09 and 2009-10 held that advancement of objects of general public utility remain charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose for achieving the main purpose is profitable in nature. The same view was followed by this Tribunal for A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12.. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion at para no.38 for A.Y.2009-10 is reproduced herein below :- “38. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that in the given facts and detailed reading of the various judicial decisions through the years, interpreting the definition of "charitable purpose" as laid out in section 2( 15) of the Act and also the definition of "business" in relation to the said section amply revels that the theory of dominant purpose has always , all through. the years been upheld to be the determining factor laying down whether the Institution is Charitable in nature or not. Where the main object of the Institution was "charitable" in nature, then the activities carried out towards the achievement of the said, being incidental or ancillary to the main object, even if resulting in profit and even if carried out with non members, were all held to be "charitable' In nature. Hon'ble Apex Court in the earliest case of Andhra Chamber of Commerce (supra) had clearly laid out the principle that if the primary purpose of an Institution was advancement of objects of general. public utility, it would remain charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose, was profitable in nature. In our view the basic principle underlying the definition of "charitable purpose' remained unaltered even on amendment in the section 2(15) of the Act w.e.f. 01/04/2009, though the restrictive first proviso was inserted therein. Accordingly, in the given facts of the case as discussed above in detail, the assessee association’s primary purpose was advancement of objects of general public utility and it would remain charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee's appeal is allowed . “ Indian Chamber of Commerce A.Y.2012-13

In view of the same, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed.