Full News
Exempt. u/s 11 of I.T.Act allowed as requirements u/s 2(15) I.T.Act fulfilled.
Exempt. u/s 11 of I.T.Act allowed as requirements u/s 2(15) I.T.Act fulfilled.
Assessee-sty promoted & advanced med. science & promoted improvem't of public health & med. educat'n. In return, it claimed exempt. of income u/s 11. AO held, assessee sty. failed to comply with requirements of Sec 2(15), thus he rejected assessee's claim. CIT(A), held assessee's activities fell u/s 2(15), thus allowed claim. On appeal ITAT held, assessee has endorsed products on claims of health & nutritional benefit, thus claim allowance right.
Facts in Brief:
1. The assessee-society was formed to promote and advance medical science and to promote improvement of public health and medical education in India.
2. The assessee filed its return claiming exemption of income under section 11.
3. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had received endorsement money of Rs. 1.87 crore for making endorsement of products of various corporate entities.
4. The Assessing Officer, thus, taking a view that assessee society failed to comply with requirements of section 2(15), rejected assessee's claim for exemption of income.
5. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, opined that assessee had been able to demonstrate that it was engaged in promotion and advancement of medical science and improvement of the public health. Hence, its activities fell within the meaning of section 2(15).
6. The Commissioner (Appeals), thus, allowed assessee's claim.
On appeal, ITAT held as under:
7. It is not the case of the revenue that the endorsement of healthy nutrition is medically/scientifically incorrect. The assessee as per the mandate of its objects has endorsed products on the claims of health and nutritional benefit and thus the grievance of the revenue appears to be misplaced.
8. The revenue has also canvassed that the mere fact that the assessee has received financial support from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare does not mean that it is performing a charitable activity.
9. It goes without saying that financial support from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the assessee necessarily would be based on the functions performed by the said trust and would necessarily be monitored at each and every step with adequate checks and balances would not be allowed to be frittered away carelessly. Accordingly considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the departmental grounds have no merit and deserve to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
