To be eligible for exemption, educational institutions have to be solely engaged educational activities
Cause Title : M/s New Noble Educational Society Vs The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 And Anr., Supreme Court Of India, Civil Appeal No. 3795 Of 2014
Date of Judgment/Order : 19/10/2022
Corum : Uday Umesh Lalit; Cji., S. Ravindra Bhat; J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J.
Citied:
- T.M.A Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481
- Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT, [1997] 224 ITR 310
- Oxford University Press v. CIT, [2001] 247 ITR 658
Background
The subject matter of the appeals was the rejection of the appellants’ claim for registration as a fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution set up for the charitable purpose of education, under the Income Tax Act, 1961 . The Andhra Pradesh High Court, by its detailed impugned judgment, held that the appellant trusts which claimed benefit of exemption under Section 10 (23C) of the IT Act were not created ‘solely’ for the purpose of education, and that to determine that issue, the court had to consider the memorandum of association or the rules or the constitution of the concerned trust.
Judgment
- The correct meaning of the term ‘solely’ in Section 10 (23C) (vi) which exempts income of “university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit”.
- the proper manner in considering any gains, surpluses or profits, when such receipts accrue to an educational institution, i.e., their treatment for the purposes of assessment,
- in addition to the claim of a given institution to exemption on the ground that it actually exists to impart education, in law, whether the concerned tax authorities require satisfaction of any other conditions, such as registration of charitable institutions, under local or state laws.
- It is held that the requirement of the charitable institution, society or trust etc., to ‘solely’ engage itself in education or educational activities, and not engage in any activity of profit, means that such institutions cannot have objects which are unrelated to education. In other words, all objects of the society, trust etc., must relate to imparting education or be in relation to educational activities.
- Where the objective of the institution appears to be profit-oriented, such institutions would not be entitled to approval under Section 10(23C) of the IT Act. At the same time, where surplus accrues in a given year or set of years per se, it is not a bar, provided such surplus is generated in the course of providing education or educational activities.
- The seventh proviso to Section 10(23C), as well as Section 11(4A) refer to profits which may be ‘incidentally’ generated or earned by the charitable institution. In the present case, the same is applicable only to those institutions which impart education or are engaged in activities connected to education.
- The reference to ‘business’ and ‘profits’ in the seventh proviso to Section 10(23C) and Section 11(4A) merely means that the profits of business which is ‘incidental’ to educational activity – as explained in the earlier part of the judgment i.e., relating to education such as sale of text books, providing school bus facilities, hostel facilities, etc.
- The reasoning and conclusions in American Hotel (supra) and Queen’s Education Society (supra) so far as they pertain to the interpretation of expression ‘solely’ are hereby disapproved. The judgments are accordingly overruled to that extent.
- While considering applications for approval under Section 10(23C), the Commissioner or the concerned authority as the case may be under the second proviso is not bound to examine only the objects of the institution. To ascertain the genuineness of the institution and the manner of its functioning, the Commissioner or other authority is free to call for the audited accounts or other such documents for recording satisfaction where the society, trust or institution genuinely seeks to achieve the objects which it professes. The observations made in American Hotel (supra) suggest that the Commissioner could not call for the records and that the examination of such accounts would be at the stage of assessment. Whilst that reasoning undoubtedly applies to newly set up charities, trusts etc. the proviso under Section 10(23C) is not confined to newly set up trusts – it also applies to existing ones. The Commissioner or other authority is not in any manner constrained from examining accounts and other related documents to see the pattern of income and expenditure.
- It is held that wherever registration of trust or charities is obligatory under state or local laws, the concerned trust, society, other institution etc. seeking approval under Section 10(23C) should also comply with provisions of such state laws. This would enable the Commissioner or concerned authority to ascertain the genuineness of the trust, society etc. This reasoning is reinforced by the recent insertion of another proviso of Section 10(23C) with effect from 01.04.2021.
Comments
Post a Comment