Industrial Development Corporation’s infrastructure activities held as Charitable; Section 11 Exemption Allowed

[Explanation. The expression “to borrow money” with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions includes, acceptance of deposits (not being deposits accepted under section 22) from the public for a specified period and on payment of interest thereon to the depositors at specified rates].

“12.2 Whether the activities of the appellant AUDA can be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce or business as occurring in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, few decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as other High Courts are required to be referred to at this stage.

12.3 In the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. , reported in (1995) 1 SCC 574, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the word “trade”. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “the primary meaning of the word “trade” is the exchange of goods for goods or goods for money”.

12. 4.In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Bakhi & Bros. , reported in 1964(5) STC 644 (SC) while considering the word “business”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “the word “business” was of indefinite import and in a taxing statute, it is used in sense of an occupation, or profession which occupies time, attention or labour of a person, and is clearly associated with the object of marking profit”.

12.5 In the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (supra) while considering the whether activities of Indian Trade promotion organization can be said to be in the nature of “business”, despite the fact that the said organization was collecting rent for providing the space at trade, fair and exhibitions and though was receiving income by way of sale of tickets and income from tickets and sale in Pragati Maidan etc., after considering the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as decisions of the other High Courts, it is held that activities of the said organization cannot be considered as “business”. While holding so, Delhi High Court has observed and held as under:

“An activity would be considered ‘business’ if it is undertaken with a profit motive, but in some cases, this may not be determinative. Normally, the profit motive test should be satisfied, but in a given case activity may be regarded as a business even when profit motive cannot be established / proved. In such cases. there should be evidence and material to show that the activity has continued on sound and recognized business principles and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business.”

12.6. In the aforesaid decision, after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sal Publication Fund reported in (2002) 258 ITR 70(SC), it is held by the Delhi High Court that “thus, if the dominant activity of the assessee was not business, then any incidental or ancillary activity would also not fall within the definition of business.” In para 64, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under:

“64. It is not necessary that a person should give something for free or at a concessional rate to qualify as being established for a charitable purpose. If the object and purpose of the institution is charitable, the fact that the institution collects certain charges, does not alter the character of the institution.

67. The expressions trade, commerce and business as occurring in the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act must be read in the context of the intent and purport of section 2(15) of the Act and cannot be interpreted to mean any activity which is carried on in an organized manner. The purpose and the dominant object for which an institution carries on its activities is material to determine whether the same is business or not. The purport of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not to exclude entities which are essentially for charitable purpose but are conducting some activities for a consideration or a fee. The object of introducing the first proviso is to exclude organizations which are carrying on regular business from the scope of charitable purpose. The purpose introducing the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act can be understood from the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister while introducing the Finance Bill 2008. The relevant extract to the Speech is as under:

Charitable purpose includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and any other object of general public utility. These activities are tax exempt, as they should be. However, some entities carrying on regular trade, commerce or business or providing services in relation to any trade, commerce or business and earning incomes have sought to claim that their purposes would also fall under charitable purpose. Obviously, this was not the intention of Parliament and, hence, I propose to amend the law to exclude the aforesaid cases. Genuine charitable organizations will not in any way be affected. The expressions business, trade or commerce as used in the first proviso must, thus, be interpreted restrictively and where the dominant object of an organization is charitable any incidental activity for furtherance of the object would not fall within the expressions business, trade or commerce.

69. In the case of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC), the Supreme Court held as under:

“The test which has, therefore, now to be applied is whether predominant object of the activity involved in carrying out the object of general public utility is to subserve the charitable purpose or to earn profit. Where profit making is the predominant object of the activity, the purpose, though an object of general public utility would cease to be a charitable purpose.

But where the predominant object of the activity is to any out the charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it would not lose its character of a charitable purpose merely be cause some profit arises from the activity.”

70. Although in that case the statutory provisions being considered by the Supreme Court were different and the utilization of income earned is, now, not a relevant consideration in view of the express words of the first proviso to Section 2 [15] of the Act, nonetheless the test of dominant object of an entity would be relevant to determine whether the entity is carrying on business or not. In the present case, there is little doubt that the objects of the activities of the petitioner are entirely for charitable purposes. WP(C) 1872/13 Page 48 of 55 Finally in ICAI(II) (supra), this court, with reference to H. Abdul Bakhi and Bros (supra) observed as under: indicate to an 71. Although, it is not essential that an activity be carried on for profit motive in order to be considered as business, but existence of profit motive would be a vital indicator in determining whether organisation is carrying on business or not. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted figures that expenditure on salaries and depreciation exceeds the surplus as generated from holding coaching classes. In addition, the petitioner institute provides study material and other academic support such as facilities of a library without any material additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakhi and Bros. (supra) held as under:

The expression “business” though extensively used a word of indefinite import, in taxing statutes it is used in the sense of an occupation, or profession which occupies the time, attention and labour of a person, normally with the object of making profit. To regard an activity as business there must be a course of dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive, and not for sport or pleasure. (Underlining added)

72. There is nothing on record to indicate the assertion of the petitioner that its activities are not fuelled by profit motive is incorrect. Absence of profit motive, though not conclusive, does indicate that the petitioner is not carrying on any business.”

12.7. Identical question came to be considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Bureau of India Standard v. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) reported in (Delhi). In the said decision, the Delhi High Court was considering whether the activities of the Bureau of Indian Standards (supra) in granting licenses and trading certificates and charging amounted to carrying on business, trade or commerce and while considering the said question, it is observed as under:

“In these circumstances, rendering any service in relation to trade, commerce or business cannot, in the opinion of the Court, receive such a wide construction as to enfold regulatory and sovereign authorities, set up under statutory enactments, and tasked to act as agencies of the State in public duties which cannot be discharged by private bodies. Often, apart from the controlling or parent statutes, like the BIS Act, these statutory bodies (including BIS) are empowered to frame rules or regulations, exercise coercive powers, including inspection, raids; they possess search and seizure powers and are invariably subjected to Parliamentary or legislative oversight. The primary object for setting up such regulatory bodies would be to ensure general public utility. The prescribing of standards, and enforcing those standards. through accreditation and continuing supervision through inspection etc., cannot be considered as trade, business or commercial activity, merely because the accreditation testing procedures, involves charging of such fees. It cannot be said that the public utility activity of and enforcing evolving, prescribing standards, involves the carrying on of trade or commercial activity.”

12.8. Circular No.11 of 2008 issued by the CBDT fell for consideration by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s G.S. 1 India v. Director General of Income-tax (Exemption) and Another: WP(C) 7797/2009, decided on 26.09.2013 . It is held that even as per the said circular, proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is applicable to assessee, who are engaged in commercial activities i.e. carrying on business, trade or commerce, in the garb of ‘public utilities’ to avoid tax liability as it was noticed that the object ‘general public utility’ was sometimes used as a mask or device to hide the true purpose, which was ‘trade, commerce or business’. Thus, it is evident that introduction of proviso to Section 2(15) by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008 was directed to prevent the unholy practice of pure trade, commerce and business entities from masking their activities and portraying them in the garb of an activity with the object of a general public utility. It is not designed to hit at those institutions, which had the advancement of the objects of general public utility at their hearts and were charity institutions. The attempt was to remove the masks from the entities, which were purely trade, commerce or business entities, and to expose their true identities.

In the case of M/s G.S. 1 India (supra), in para 21, 22 and 27, the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under:

“21. As observed above, legal terms, trade, commerce or business in Section 2(15), mean activity undertaken with a view to make or earn profit. Profit motive is determinative and a critical factor to discern whether an activity is business, trade or commerce. The court further held:

22. Business activity has an important pervading element of self interest, though fair dealing should and can be present, whilst charity or charitable activity is antithesis of activity undertaken with profit motive or activity undertaken on sound or recognized business principles. Charity is driven by altruism and desire to serve others, though element of self preservation may be present. For charity, benevolence should be omnipresent and demonstrable but it is not equivalent to self-sacrifice and abnegation. The antiquated definition of charity, which entails giving and receiving nothing in return is outdated. A mandatory feature would be; charitable activity should be devoid of selfishness or illiberal spirit. Enrichment of oneself or self-gain should be missing and the predominant purpose of the activity WP(C) 1872/13 Page 52 of 55 should be to serve and benefit others. A small contribution by way of fee that the beneficiary pays would not convert charitable activity into business, commerce or trade in the absence of contrary evidence. Quantum of fee charged, economic status of the beneficiaries who pay, commercial value of benefits in comparison to the fee, purpose and object behind the fee etc. are several factors which will decide the seminal question, is it business ?

27. As observed above, fee charged and quantum of income earned can be indicative of the fact that the person is carrying on business as or commerce and not charity, but we must keep in mind that charitable activities require operational/running expenses as well capital expenses to be able to sustain and continue in long run. The petitioner has to be substantially self-sustaining in long term and should not depend upon government, in other words taxpayers should not subsidize the said activities, which nevertheless are charitable and fall under WP(C) 1872/13 Page 53 of 55 the residuary clause general public utility. The impugned order does not refer to any statutory mandate that a charitable institution falling under the last clause should be wholly, substantially or in part must be funded by voluntary contributions. No such requirement has been pointed out or argued. A practical and pragmatic view is required when we examine the data, which should be analyzed objectively and a narrow and coloured view will be counter-productive and contrary to the language of Section 2(15) of the Act.”

12.9. While upholding the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Trade Promotion Organization v. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) in WP(C) No.1872 of 2013 decided on 22.01.2015 has observed in para 58 as under:

“As defined in Section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act. It is also clear that if the literal interpretation is given to the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act, then the proviso would be at risk of running fowl of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C) (iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration. In both the activities, in the nature of trade, commerce or business or the activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, the dominant and the prime objective has to be seen. If the dominant and prime objective of the WP(C) 1872/13 Page 54 of 55 institution, which claims to have been established for charitable purposes, is profit making, whether its activities are directly in the nature of trade, commerce or business or indirectly in the rendering of any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, then it would not be entitled to claim its object to be a ‘charitable purpose’. On the flip side, where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire or motive to earn profits, but to do charity through the advancement of an object of general public utility, it cannot but be regarded as an institution established for charitable purposes.

13. Applying the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and with respect to the activities of the AUDA Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act by no stretch of Imagination, it can be said that the activities of the assessee (AUDA) can be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce or business and/or its object and purpose is profiteering. Merely because under the statutory provisions and to meet with the expenditure of Town Planning Scheme and / or providing various services under the Town Planning Scheme, such as road, drainage, electricity, water supply etc. if the assessee is permitted to sale the plots (land) to the extent of 15% of the total area under the Town Planning Scheme and while selling the said plots they are sold by holding the public auction, it cannot be said that activities of the assessee is profiteering, to be in the nature of trade, commerce and business

13.1.In the case of Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti Nagar (supra), it is held by the Allahabad High Court that the activities of the authority cannot be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce or business and / or profiteering and therefore, proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act shall not be applicable.

13.2.Similar, view has been expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-l, Jodhpur v. Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur Tax Appeal No. 63 of 2012 decided on 5.7.2016

14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and more particularly, considering the fact that the assessee is a statutory body Urban Development Authority constituted under the provisions of the Act. constituted to carry out the object and purpose of Town Planning Act and collects regulatory fees for the object of the Acts; no services are rendered to any particular trade, commerce or business; whatever the income is earned /received by the assessee even while selling the plots (to the extent of 15% of the total area covered under the Town Planning Scheme) is required to be used only for the purpose to carry out the object and purpose of Town Planning Act and to meet with expenditure while providing general utility service to the public such as electricity, road, drainage, water etc. and even the entire control is with State Government and even accounts are also subjected to audit and there is no element of profiteering at all, the activities of the assessee cannot be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce and business and therefore, proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act shall not be applicable so far as assessee is concerned and therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the question no.1 is to be held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

15. Now, so far as another question which is posed for the consideration of this Court ie.whether while collecting the cess or fees, activities of the assessee can be said to be rendering any services in relation to any trade, commerce or business is concerned, for the reasons stated above, merely because the assessee is collecting cess or fees which is regulatory in nature, the proviso to Section 2(15)of the Act shall not be applicable. As observed herein above neither there is element of profiteering nor the same can be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce or business. At this stage, decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust (supra) is required to be referred to. In the case before the Division Bench, the assessee Trust Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust was engaged in the activity of breeding milk cattle; to improve the quality of cows and oxen and other related activities. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption to the trust under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that considerable income was generated from the activities of milk production and sale and therefore, considering the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, the said Trust-assessee was denied the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. While holding that the activities of the assessee trust still can be said to be for charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act and same cannot be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce or business for which proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is required to be applied. In para 6, 7, 8 and 12, it is observed and held as under:

6. The legal controversy in the present Tax Appeal centers around the first proviso. In the plain terms, the proviso provides for exclusion from the main object of the definition of the term Charitable purposes and applies only to cases of advancement of any other of general general public utility. If the conditions provided under the proviso are satisfied, any entity, even if involved in advancement of any other object of general public utility by virtue to proviso, would be excluded from the definition of charitable trust. However, for the application of the proviso, what is necessary is that the entity should be involved in carrying on activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering services in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration. In such a situation, the nature, use or application, or retention of income from such activities would not be relevant. Under the circumstances, the important elements of application of proviso are that the entity should be involved in carrying on the activities of any trade, commerce or business or any activities of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration. Such statutory amendment was explained by the Finance Ministers speech in the Parliament. Relevant portion of which reads as under:

I once again assure the House that genuine charitable organizations will not in any way be affected. The CBDT will, following the usual practice, issue an explanatory circular containing guidelines for determining whether any entity is carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. Whether the purpose is a charitable purpose will depend on the totality of the facts of the case. Ordinarily, Chambers of Commerce and similar organizations rendering services to their members would not be affected by the amendment and their activities would continue to be regarded as advancement of any other object of general public utility.

7. In consonance with such assurance given by the Finance Minister on the floor of the House, CBDT issued a Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19th December 2008 explaining the amendment as under:

3. The newly inserted proviso to section 2 (15) will apply only to entities whose purpose is advancement of any other object of general public utility ie., the fourth limb of the definition of charitable purpose contained in section 2 (15). Hence, such entities will not be eligible for exemption under section 11 or under section 10 (23C) of the Act if they carry on commercial activities Whether such an entity is carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business is a question of fact which will be decided based on the nature, scope, extent and frequency of the activity.

3.1 There are industry and trade associations who claim exemption from tax under section 11 on the ground that their objects are for charitable purpose as these are covered under any other object of general public utility. Under the principle of mutuality, if trading takes place between persons associated together and contribute to a common fund for the financing of some venture or object and in this respect have no dealings or relations with any outside body, then any surplus returned to the persons forming such association is not chargeable to tax. In such cases, there must be complete identity between the contributors and the participants. Therefore, where industry or trade associations claim both to be charitable as institutions mutual well as organizations and their activities are restricted to contributions from and participation of only their members, these would not fall under the purview of the proviso to section 2 (15) owing to the principle of mutuality. However, if such organizations have dealings with non members, their claim to be chargeable organizations would now be governed by the additional conditions stipulated in the proviso to section 2 (15).

3.2 In the final analysis, however, whether the assessee has for its object the advancement of any other object of general public utility is a question of fact. If such assessee is engaged in any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or renders any service in relation to trade, commerce or business, it would not be entitled to claim that its object is charitable purpose. In such a case, the object of general public utility will be only a mask or a device to hide the true purpose which is trade, commerce or business or the rendering of any service in relation to trade, commerce or business. Each case would, therefore, be decided on its own facts and no generalization is possible. Assessees, who claim that their object is charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15), would be well advised to eschew any activity which is in the nature of trade, commerce or business or the rendering of any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business.

8. What thus emerges from the statutory provisions, as explained in the speech of Finance Minister and the CBDT Circular, is that the activity of a trust would be excluded from the term charitable purpose if it is engaged in any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or renders any service in relation to trade, commerce or business for a cess, fee and/or any other consideration. It is not aimed at excluding the genuine charitable trusts of general public utility but is aimed at excluding activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business which are masked as charitable purpose.

12. All these were the objects of the general public utility and would squarely fall under section 2 (15) of the Act. Profit making was neither the aim nor object of the Trust. It was not the principal activity. Merely because while carrying out the activities for the purpose of achieving the objects of the Trust, certain incidental surpluses were generated, would not render the activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. As clarified by the CBDT in its Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19th December 2008 the proviso aims to attract those activities which are truly in the nature of trade, commerce or business but are carried out under the guise of activities in the nature of public utility.

15.1. Applying the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand and the object and purpose for which the is established / constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act and collection of fees and cess is incidental to the object and purpose of the Act, even the case would not fall under second part of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act.

15.2. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding the activities of the assessee in the nature of trade, commerce or business and consequently holding that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act shall be applicable and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. For the reasons stated above, it is held that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act shall not be applicable so far as assessee-AUDA is concerned and as the activities of the assessee can be said to be providing general public utility services, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Both the questions are therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.”