Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act
The decision most relied on for Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) is Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (31 ITR 28), cited in 137 of the 1,126 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
Expenditure incurred for commercial expediency, even without a direct or immediate benefit but indirectly facilitating business, is deductible as laid out wholly and exclusively for trade. The scope of reference jurisdiction under Section 66 is limited to questions of law, allowing challenges to Tribunal findings of fact only if they are perverse, unreasonable, or lack evidence.
For registration under Section 12AA, the Commissioner (Exemptions) must examine the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its proposed activities, even if the trust has not yet commenced actual charitable activities or incurred expenditure.
A trust's objects, even if based on religious tenets, can qualify as charitable for tax exemptions if its benefits are not exclusively restricted to a particular religious community or caste.
Whether there was sufficient cause for delay in making applications for registration under section 12A and 80G is always a question of fact, and contumacious conduct by the assessee must be established for levying penalty under section 271C for non-deduction of TDS.
Membership fees and subscription amounts received by a trust or society from its members are not considered 'voluntary contributions' under Section 12 of the Income-tax Act, as they are not gratuitous payments or gifts but are made with consideration.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal performs a judicial function under the Indian Income-tax Act, invested with authority to finally determine all questions of fact. When deciding an appeal, the Tribunal must consider all material facts with due care, record findings on all contentions, and maintain a judicial balance between the revenue and taxpayer claims. The power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 enables courts, including the Tribunal, to do substantial justice, with "sufficient cause" being an elastic expression.
A religious trust is entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, which are substantive provisions for exemption available to a religious or charitable trust.
An intention to benefit a section of the public, as distinguished from a special individual, is sufficient for a trust to be considered for charitable registration and exemptions. This applies even if the beneficiaries belong to a specific caste, community, or professional group, allowing the trust to qualify as serving a general public utility under Section 2(15).
Where a trust application has a curable defect, the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to explain and rectify the defect before the CIT (Exemption). The appellate tribunal may allow the appeal and direct the CIT to reconsider the application.
The expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or similar provisions must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. Courts should avoid a pedantic or hyper-technical approach, generally accepting explanations unless negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is evident.
Judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
Showing 1–20 of 1,126 · Page 1 of 57
