HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.448 OF 2014
DATED: 24.07.2014 Between:
The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad … Appellant And M/s.Project Management Institute Pearl City Chapter … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.448 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 18.01.2013 in I.T.A.No.217/Hyderabad/2012 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12, on the following suggested questions of law.
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and specifically when as per the MOU dated 01.01.2010 entered between the assessee and M/s.Deloitte, it is mentioned that the assessee is in the business of providing consulting and project management services, the order of the Hon’ble ITAT, holding that the activities of the assessee could not be said to be inconsistent with the objects of the Trust is not perverse?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law holding that the action of the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) in cancelling the registration is not in accordance with law?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in law in setting aside the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) dated 12.12.2011, cancelling registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee?
The Director of Income-tax (Exemption) earlier granted registration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the assessee but thereafter, by order, dated 12.12.2011 cancelled the same. The Director having considered the memorandum of understanding entered with the third parties, namely, Deloitte, Computer Society of India (CSI) and Microsoft, thought that the object of charitable activities has been defeated. Learned Tribunal after examining the entire issue on fact found that there has been no evidence that the assessee has ceased charitable activity, for which, exemption was granted.
We have seen the order of the Director of Income tax (Exemptions) and the findings of the learned Tribunal recorded in the impugned judgment and order. We are of the view the finding of the Director that assessee stopped charitable activity is not correct taking note of aims and objects mentioned in trust deed.
1. Provide a common platform/net work to exchange knowledge, information and expertise among members.
2. Bring the best industry practices together by cross fertilization of ideas from industry and institutions.
3. Promote and professionalize the project management body of knowledge through different means like education, seminars, work shops, certifications and piloting.
4. Translate the knowledge, skill and best industry practices to benefit social, environmental and government projects and other initiatives eventually to benefit the common man.
It is appropriate to record here that on the basis of the aforesaid objects, the assessee was earlier granted exemption. There has been no finding that the aforesaid object clause has been defeated by undertaking any venture. According to us, by the Memorandum of Understanding, the objects of the trust/institution were sought to be achieved in better way, for which, exemption was granted. The learned Tribunal on fact found that the expenditure incurred on account of “International student leadership day” and “Student leadership competency building” is not meager when compared to the total receipts.
Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as no element of law is involved to be decided by this Court. No order as to costs.
24th JULY, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni