Supreme Court: Interpreting the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) introduced by amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2009, the bench of UU Lalit, CJ and S. Ravindra Bhat* and PS Narasimha, JJ has held that generally, an assessee advancing general public utility (GPU) cannot engage itself in any trade, commerce or business, or provide service in relation thereto for any consideration (“cess, or fee, or any other consideration”). However, in the course of achieving the object of general public utility, the concerned trust, society, or other such organization, can carry on trade, commerce or business or provide services in relation thereto for consideration, provided that:
- the activities of trade, commerce or business are connected (“actual carrying out…” inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2016) to the achievement of its objects of GPU; and
- the receipt from such business or commercial activity or service in relation thereto, does not exceed the quantified limit, as amended over the years (Rs. 10 lakhs w.e.f. 01.04.2009; then Rs. 25 lakhs w.e.f. 01.04.2012; and now 20% of total receipts of the previous year, w.e.f. 01.04.2016).
The Court, however, clarified that the conclusions arrived at by way of this judgment, neither precludes any of the assessees (whether statutory, or non-statutory) advancing objects of general public utility, from claiming exemption, nor the taxing authorities from denying exemption, in the future, if the receipts of the relevant year exceed the quantitative limit.
The assessing authorities must on a yearly basis, scrutinize the record to discern whether the nature of the assessee’s activities amount to “trade, commerce or business” based on its receipts and income (i.e., whether the amounts charged are on cost-basis, or significantly higher). If it is found that they are in the nature of “trade, commerce or business”, then it must be examined whether the quantified limit (as amended from time to time) in proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus disentitling them to exemption.
The Court went through the legislative history of the provision and observed the original Section 2(15) did not allude to trade, commerce or business, or any service in relation to such activities. It only enjoined the GPU charities from involving themselves from carrying on of any activity for profit. This substantial change brought about by the amendments of 2008 -2012 and 2015 is the prohibition from engaging in any kind of activity in the nature of business, commerce, or trade or any rendering any service in relation thereto, and earning income by the way of cess, fee or consideration. Hence, the express deletion of the reference to ‘activity for profit’ on the one hand, and the enactment of an expanded list of what cannot be done by GPU charities if they are to retain their characteristic as charities, is an emphatic manner in which Parliament wished to express itself.
“What Parliament intended – through the amendments in question was to proscribe, involvement or engagement of GPU charities, from any form (“in the nature of”) of activities that were trade, business or commerce, or engage or involve in providing services in relation to trade, business or commerce- for a fee, cess or other consideration. The inclusion of the term “in the nature of” was by design, to clarify beyond doubt, that not only business, trade or commerce, but all activities in the nature of, or resembling them, were proscribed. Likewise, service in relation to such activities, i.e., services relating, or pertaining to, such proscribed activities, too were forbidden.”
The Court further observed that the reference to fee or cess in the provision is only to emphasize that even a statutory consideration, for a service to business, trade or commerce, would take the activity outside the definition of a GPU charity.
“The sense in which the expressions “cess, fee or other consideration” are used, is that if any amount, is received for trading, or business or commercial activity, or any services to such activity, then, notwithstanding their nomenclature (as fee or cess, i.e. that they are fixed under a law) the GPU charity cannot claim tax exempt status. To bring home this even more pointedly- and underline a break from the past, the application of such amounts (received in the course of trade, commerce, or business, or towards services in relation thereto) would be irrelevant, as evidenced by the term “irrespective”, in the fourth limb of reading Section 2(15).”
The Court, explained that, generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for such an activity (advancing general public utility), which is on cost-basis or nominally above cost, cannot be considered to be “trade, commerce, or business” or any services in relation thereto. It is only when the charges are markedly or significantly above the cost incurred by the assessee in question, that they would fall within the mischief of “cess, or fee, or any other consideration” towards “trade, commerce or business”.
“Carrying out activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or service in relation to such activities, should be conducted in the course of achieving the GPU object, and the income, profit or surplus or gains must, therefore, be incidental.”
When a clarification was sought by Revenue on the judgment, the Court, in order dated 03.11.2022, clarified that:
- For the assessment years in question, which were before the court and were decided, wherever the appeals were decided against the revenue, they are to be treated as final.
- For future application, for the assessment years which this court was not called upon to decide, the concerned authorities will apply the law declared in the judgment, having regard to the facts of each such assessment year.
[CIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1461, decided on 19.10.2022]
*Judgment by: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
