Allowed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Mahathma Gandhi Vidyapeetha Trust

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2023ITA/468/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Income Tax Bench allowed three appeals filed by the Revenue challenging ITAT orders. The Court dismissed the appeals, answering questions of law in favor of the assessee, holding no surplus existed and exempting expenses under relevant sections, while leaving one question open. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed. Questions No.1 and 3 were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No.2 was left open.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Mahathma Gandhi… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:21220 ITA No. 468 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 470 of 2019 ITA No. 472 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶9

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2019 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2019 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (E) , CIRCLE-1 6^TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING BENGALURU …APPELLANTS (COMMON IN ALL APPEALS)

¶13

(BY SRI. SANMATHI E I., STANDING COUNSEL)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by MALA K N

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

M/S. MAHATHMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST SAVIGE MALLESWARA GHILLS KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU-560078 …RESPONDENT (COMMON IN ALL APPEALS)

¶18

(BY SRI. SHANKAR A. SR.ADV. FOR SRI. GURUMURTHY M.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

ITA NO. 468 OF 2019 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.2707/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT.

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:21220 ITA No. 468 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 470 of 2019 ITA No. 472 of 2019

¶21

¶22

ITA NO. 470 OF 2019 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.2708/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT.

¶23

ITA NO. 472 OF 2019 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.2709/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT.

¶24

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

These three appeals by the Revenue challenging the order dated February 15, 2019 in I.T.A.Nos.2707 to 2709/Bang/2017 passed by the ITAT¹ for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15, have been admitted to consider following two questions of law:

¶27

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there was no surplus which could be considered by the assessing authority to deny exemption under section 11 of the Act though the assessee had a net surplus before allowing depreciation and after allowing depreciation for the AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15?”

¶28

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Bangalore

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:21220 ITA No. 468 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 470 of 2019 ITA No. 472 of 2019

¶30

2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the exemption under section 11 of the Act on the expenses incurred for travel outside India without appreciating that exemption under section 11 can be allowed only if the charitable activity is performed in India and said expenses has no nexus with any charitable activity performed in India?.”

¶31

Heard Shri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel

¶32

for the Revenue and Shri.A.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate for respondent/assessee.

¶33

Shri. Sanmathi for the Revenue rightly submitted that the question No.1 referred in Memorandum of Appeals is relevant for consideration of these appeals. Accordingly, the said question considered as question No.3 in these

¶34

appeals, and it reads as follows:

¶35

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in allowing assessee's claim of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act though the assessee has collected more than the fee declared or notifies in respect of NRI/NRI sponsored and others quota i.e., Management Quota in the garb of voluntary contributions/corpus fund and this

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:21220 ITA No. 468 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 470 of 2019 ITA No. 472 of 2019

¶37

¶38

fact of collecting more than the fee notified has been proved without any dispute in as much as the assessee itself furnishing the details"?

¶39

Shri Shankar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that question No.2 does not arise for consideration in these appeals. Same is not disputed by Shri.Sanmathi.

¶40

Shri Shankar further submitted that question No.3 is covered by the decision of this Court in Kammavari Sangham -vsDeputy Director of income-tax (Exemptions)² and I.T.A.No.554/2018 decided on 05.06.2023. The said submission is also not disputed by Shri Sanmathi.

¶41

Shri Shankar submitted that the authorities below have recorded a finding of fact that there was no surplus and in fact, there was deficit insofar as the Educational Institutions are concerned.

¶42

2 (2023) 146 taxmann.com 367 (Karnataka)

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:21220 ITA No. 468 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 470 of 2019 ITA No. 472 of 2019

¶44

¶45

In reply, Shri Sanmathi submitted that the

¶46

authorities below have not considered the aspect of depreciation. Therefore, there is no clear finding of fact. However, it is not disputed that both questions No.1 and 3

¶47

are covered by the decisions in Kammavari Sangham and I.T.A.No.554/2018 (supra).

¶48