My institution advances an object of general public utility but charges fees and ends up with a surplus — does the proviso to section 2(15) knock out my exemption?
Not by itself. The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the first proviso to section 2(15) but read it down: it bites only where the dominant and prime objective of the institution is profit making, whether directly through trade, commerce or business or indirectly through rendering services in relation to them. Charging a fee, or generating a surplus, does not by itself make an institution non-charitable. Because the India Trade Promotion Organisation's driving force was promoting the nation's trade rather than earning profit, its exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) was restored and a mandamus issued to grant approval within six weeks.
Decided by the High Court (High Court of Delhi — Badar Durrez Ahmed and Vibhu Bakhru JJ (judgment by Badar Durrez Ahmed J)) on 2015-01-22, reported as W.P. (C) 1872/2013 (Delhi High Court). It bears on section 2(15), section 10(23C)(iv), section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Capital Gains Exemptions matters.
This is the leading High Court authority on the first proviso to section 2(15) and the one every general public utility claim is argued around. It supplies the test — dominant object, not the presence of receipts — and the constitutional reasoning behind it: a literal reading would risk offending Article 14, so the proviso must be read down to save its validity. It also establishes that section 2(15) is a definition clause opening with 'unless the context otherwise requires', and must take colour from section 10(23C)(iv). The Court expressly disagreed with the Kerala High Court in Info Parks Kerala and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in AP State Seed Certification Agency. Note that the Supreme Court has since revisited this ground in the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority line, so the reading down must be checked against that.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking incorporated under section 25 of the Companies Act 1956, formed by merging three government trade fair and exhibition bodies, functioning under the Department of Commerce with a board of nominated civil servants and accounts audited internally, statutorily and by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Approval under section 10(23C)(iv) had been granted from assessment year 2007-08 by notification of 1 May 2008. During the assessment for 2009-10 the Assessing Officer proposed withdrawal on the footing that the proviso to section 2(15), introduced with effect from 1 April 2009, applied. By order of 23 February 2012 the approval was withdrawn from assessment year 2009-10 onwards, on the grounds that the petitioner had large bank surpluses, let out space during trade fairs, sold tickets and earned income from food and beverage outlets at Pragati Maidan, and rendered services to traders in relation to trade and commerce. The petitioner withdrew an earlier writ petition with liberty to seek rectification, and filed a section 154 application explaining its activities: Pragati Maidan had been allotted by the Cabinet in 1976 at a nominal ground rent, which let it provide exhibition space at rates well below market; its surplus had accumulated because the lease deed was executed only in March 2011 and land use had not been renotified, so renovation could not proceed; income from hoardings was event signage put up by participants; sale of publications was fair guides worth a few lakhs; entry tickets were charged for crowd control, on the Commissioner of Police's written request to cap visitors at one lakh a day; and food and beverage outlets were let on long term because operators had to invest in setting them up. The Director General rejected the application on 23 January 2013, both as not maintainable under section 154 and on merits, reasoning that a public sector undertaking must be treated like a private operator and that the recurring large surplus showed conscious commercial exploitation. He relied on Info Parks Kerala and AP State Seed Certification Agency. The petitioner then challenged both that order and the validity of the proviso itself under Article 14.
The writ petition was allowed, parties to bear their own costs. The constitutional validity of the first proviso to section 2(15) was upheld, but the proviso was read down. The impugned order of 23 January 2013 was set aside and a mandamus issued to grant the petitioner approval under section 10(23C)(iv) within six weeks. On the correct construction, the proviso carves out an exception to the general public utility limb limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business, and to rendering any service in relation to trade, commerce or business for a cess, fee or other consideration; in both cases what must be seen is the dominant and prime objective. If that objective is profit making, whether directly or through service rendered in relation to trade, commerce or business, the institution cannot claim a charitable purpose. Where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire to earn profits but to do charity through advancing an object of general public utility, it must be regarded as established for charitable purposes. Merely because a fee or other consideration is collected, an institution does not lose its charitable character; and if the dominant activity is not business, trade or commerce, an incidental or ancillary activity will not fall into those categories either. On the facts, the driving force was not profit but promoting trade and commerce for the nation, within India and abroad, and nothing on record contradicted the petitioner's assertion that its activities were not fuelled by a profit motive.
The Court read section 2(15) as what it is — a definition clause in a section that opens with 'in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires' — so the expression 'charitable purpose' must take its colour from section 10(23C)(iv), the provision under which exemption was claimed, and cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. A literal reading of the proviso would put it at risk of offending the equality clause in Article 14; since courts must endeavour to uphold constitutional validity, and following Arun Kumar, the proviso had to be read down instead of struck down. The Court then used the legislative history against the Revenue's construction: the notes on clauses and the memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, and CBDT Circular No. 11/2008, show that the proviso was aimed at entities carrying on business in the garb of public utility, using the fourth limb as a mask to avoid tax — not at genuine charities, as the Finance Minister had assured. It applied the reasoning of the Division Bench in G.S.1 (India): profit motive is the determinative and critical factor in deciding whether an activity is trade, commerce or business; charity is the antithesis of activity undertaken with a profit motive, driven by altruism rather than self-gain; a small fee does not convert charity into business, and the quantum of fee, the economic status of those who pay, the commercial value of the benefit and the purpose of the fee are all factors. A charity must be substantially self-sustaining in the long run and cannot be expected to depend on the taxpayer, and no statutory mandate requires a general public utility institution to be funded by voluntary contributions; a narrow and coloured view of surplus data would be counter-productive. Absence of profit motive, though not conclusive, indicates that no business is being carried on. On that approach the Court respectfully disagreed with the Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Court decisions the Director General had relied on.
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.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot by itself. The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the first proviso to section 2(15) but read it down: it bites only where the dominant and prime objective of the institution is profit making, whether directly through trade, commerce or business or indirectly through rendering services in relation to them. Charging a fee, or generating a surplus, does not by itself make an institution non-charitable. Because the India Trade Promotion Organisation's driving force was promoting the nation's trade rather than earning profit, its exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) was restored and a mandamus issued to grant approval within six weeks. This was decided by the High Court (High Court of Delhi — Badar Durrez Ahmed and Vibhu Bakhru JJ (judgment by Badar Durrez Ahmed J)) and bears on section 2(15), section 10(23C)(iv), section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P. (C) 1872/2013 (Delhi High Court). This is the leading High Court authority on the first proviso to section 2(15) and the one every general public utility claim is argued around. It supplies the test — dominant object, not the presence of receipts — and the constitutional reasoning behind it: a literal reading would risk offending Article 14, so the proviso must be read down to save its validity. It also establishes that section 2(15) is a definition clause opening with 'unless the context otherwise requires', and must take colour from section 10(23C)(iv). The Court expressly disagreed with the Kerala High Court in Info Parks Kerala and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in AP State Seed Certification Agency. Note that the Supreme Court has since revisited this ground in the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority line, so the reading down must be checked against that. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Frame the case around dominant object: show what drives the institution, and treat fees, ticket sales and surpluses as facts to be explained rather than concessions to be avoided.
The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking incorporated under section 25 of the Companies Act 1956, formed by merging three government trade fair and exhibition bodies, functioning under the Department of Commerce with a board of nominated civil servants and accounts audited internally, statutorily and by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Approval under section 10(23C)(iv) had been granted from assessment year 2007-08 by notification of 1 May 2008. During the assessment for 2009-10 the Assessing Officer proposed withdrawal on the footing that the proviso to section 2(15), introduced with effect from 1 April 2009, applied. By order of 23 February 2012 the approval was withdrawn from assessment year 2009-10 onwards, on the grounds that the petitioner had large bank surpluses, let out space during trade fairs, sold tickets and earned income from food and beverage outlets at Pragati Maidan, and rendered services to traders in relation to trade and commerce. The petitioner withdrew an earlier writ petition with liberty to seek rectification, and filed a section 154 application explaining its activities: Pragati Maidan had been allotted by the Cabinet in 1976 at a nominal ground rent, which let it provide exhibition space at rates well below market; its surplus had accumulated because the lease deed was executed only in March 2011 and land use had not been renotified, so renovation could not proceed; income from hoardings was event signage put up by participants; sale of publications was fair guides worth a few lakhs; entry tickets were charged for crowd control, on the Commissioner of Police's written request to cap visitors at one lakh a day; and food and beverage outlets were let on long term because operators had to invest in setting them up. The Director General rejected the application on 23 January 2013, both as not maintainable under section 154 and on merits, reasoning that a public sector undertaking must be treated like a private operator and that the recurring large surplus showed conscious commercial exploitation. He relied on Info Parks Kerala and AP State Seed Certification Agency. The petitioner then challenged both that order and the validity of the proviso itself under Article 14. The matter was decided on 2015-01-22 by the High Court (High Court of Delhi — Badar Durrez Ahmed and Vibhu Bakhru JJ (judgment by Badar Durrez Ahmed J)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was allowed, parties to bear their own costs. The constitutional validity of the first proviso to section 2(15) was upheld, but the proviso was read down. The impugned order of 23 January 2013 was set aside and a mandamus issued to grant the petitioner approval under section 10(23C)(iv) within six weeks. On the correct construction, the proviso carves out an exception to the general public utility limb limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business, and to rendering any service in relation to trade, commerce or business for a cess, fee or other consideration; in both cases what must be seen is the dominant and prime objective. If that objective is profit making, whether directly or through service rendered in relation to trade, commerce or business, the institution cannot claim a charitable purpose. Where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire to earn profits but to do charity through advancing an object of general public utility, it must be regarded as established for charitable purposes. Merely because a fee or other consideration is collected, an institution does not lose its charitable character; and if the dominant activity is not business, trade or commerce, an incidental or ancillary activity will not fall into those categories either. On the facts, the driving force was not profit but promoting trade and commerce for the nation, within India and abroad, and nothing on record contradicted the petitioner's assertion that its activities were not fuelled by a profit motive.
The Court read section 2(15) as what it is — a definition clause in a section that opens with 'in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires' — so the expression 'charitable purpose' must take its colour from section 10(23C)(iv), the provision under which exemption was claimed, and cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. A literal reading of the proviso would put it at risk of offending the equality clause in Article 14; since courts must endeavour to uphold constitutional validity, and following Arun Kumar, the proviso had to be read down instead of struck down. The Court then used the legislative history against the Revenue's construction: the notes on clauses and the memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, and CBDT Circular No. 11/2008, show that the proviso was aimed at entities carrying on business in the garb of public utility, using the fourth limb as a mask to avoid tax — not at genuine charities, as the Finance Minister had assured. It applied the reasoning of the Division Bench in G.S.1 (India): profit motive is the determinative and critical factor in deciding whether an activity is trade, commerce or business; charity is the antithesis of activity undertaken with a profit motive, driven by altruism rather than self-gain; a small fee does not convert charity into business, and the quantum of fee, the economic status of those who pay, the commercial value of the benefit and the purpose of the fee are all factors. A charity must be substantially self-sustaining in the long run and cannot be expected to depend on the taxpayer, and no statutory mandate requires a general public utility institution to be funded by voluntary contributions; a narrow and coloured view of surplus data would be counter-productive. Absence of profit motive, though not conclusive, indicates that no business is being carried on. On that approach the Court respectfully disagreed with the Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Court decisions the Director General had relied on. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "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."
It was decided by the High Court on 2015-01-22 and is reported as W.P. (C) 1872/2013 (Delhi High Court). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 2(15), section 10(23C)(iv), section 154, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The writ petition was allowed, parties to bear their own costs. The constitutional validity of the first proviso to section 2(15) was upheld, but the proviso was read down. The impugned order of 23 January 2013 was set aside and a mandamus issued to grant the petitioner approval under section 10(23C)(iv) within six weeks. On the correct construction, the proviso carves out an exception to the general public utility limb limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business, and to rendering any service in relation to trade, commerce or business for a cess, fee or other consideration; in both cases what must be seen is the dominant and prime objective. If that objective is profit making, whether directly or through service rendered in relation to trade, commerce or business, the institution cannot claim a charitable purpose. Where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire to earn profits but to do charity through advancing an object of general public utility, it must be regarded as established for charitable purposes. Merely because a fee or other consideration is collected, an institution does not lose its charitable character; and if the dominant activity is not business, trade or commerce, an incidental or ancillary activity will not fall into those categories either. On the facts, the driving force was not profit but promoting trade and commerce for the nation, within India and abroad, and nothing on record contradicted the petitioner's assertion that its activities were not fuelled by a profit motive. It arises in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Capital Gains Exemptions matters, on section 2(15), section 10(23C)(iv), section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by High Court of Delhi — Badar Durrez Ahmed and Vibhu Bakhru JJ (judgment by Badar Durrez Ahmed J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Explain each receipt by reference to the main object — here entry tickets were shown to be crowd control at the police's own request, hoardings were event signage, and food outlets were a facility for visitors. Put the constitutional and contextual argument on record: section 2(15) is a definition clause qualified by 'unless the context otherwise requires' and must be read with the exemption provision actually claimed. Check the current Supreme Court position on the proviso before relying on this alone, since the reading down here predates the later Supreme Court consideration of cost-plus-nominal-markup activities.
Validity check could not be completed. Widely followed at High Court and Tribunal level — the source page records over forty citing decisions — and it expressly disagrees with the Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, so a conflict of High Court views existed on this point. The Supreme Court has since examined the scope of the proviso to section 2(15) at length; whether that decision preserves, qualifies or displaces this reading down was not checked, and no later authority was read. Whether the Revenue appealed this judgment was also not checked. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The harvested text is clipped: about 51,000 characters from the middle are not reproduced, covering the parties' full arguments, the survey of authorities on the meaning of trade, commerce and business, and the Article 14 analysis in detail. The opening facts and orders under challenge, and the concluding reasoning and operative order, are present, so the holding and its ground are secure, but the intermediate reasoning has been read only in part. The judgment as harvested is dated 22 January 2015 in its heading and W.P. number but signed 'JANUARY 22, 2014' at the foot; the heading date has been followed. No reporter citation is carried by the source, so the writ petition number is given instead. Section 154 is included in the sections list because the order under challenge was passed under it and its maintainability was in issue. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was allowed, parties to bear their own costs. The constitutional validity of the first proviso to section 2(15) was upheld, but the proviso was read down. The impugned order of 23 January 2013 was set aside and a mandamus issued to grant the petitioner approval under section 10(23C)(iv) within six weeks. On the correct construction, the proviso carves out an exception to the general public utility limb limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business, and to rendering any service in relation to trade, commerce or business for a cess, fee or other consideration; in both cases what must be seen is the dominant and prime objective. If that objective is profit making, whether directly or through service rendered in relation to trade, commerce or business, the institution cannot claim a charitable purpose. Where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire to earn profits but to do charity through advancing an object of general public utility, it must be regarded as established for charitable purposes. Merely because a fee or other consideration is collected, an institution does not lose its charitable character; and if the dominant activity is not business, trade or commerce, an incidental or ancillary activity will not fall into those categories either. On the facts, the driving force was not profit but promoting trade and commerce for the nation, within India and abroad, and nothing on record contradicted the petitioner's assertion that its activities were not fuelled by a profit motive.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
An amendment adds a new levy. Does it reach back to earlier years?
Our society runs a college but also earns from hostels and events. Can we get 10(23C)(vi) approval?
I passed borrowed money to my sister concern interest-free. Can the AO disallow the interest I paid?