Ita/131/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calicut v. M/S.nobert House, Manathawady

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 I.T.A. No.131 of 2010 () --------------------- (ITA.NO.40/COCH/07 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH) FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04. APPELANT/RESPONDENT -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT ------------------------ M/S.NOBERT HOUSE,KUZHINILAM, MANANTHAWADY. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010 ALONG WITH I.T.A 160/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.Ramachandran Nair & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. ============================================ I.T.A.Nos.131, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 169, 177, 179, 187, 189, 192, 203, 230 & 235/2010 ============================================ Dated this the 11[th] day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. In all these cases, the question raised is whether the Tribunalwas justified in granting exemption under Section 11(a) to therespondent assessee, which has mixed objects of charity andreligion. On going through the orders and after hearing thestanding counsel, we find that there is no case for the departmentthat the respondent has diverted funds for purposes other thanreligion or charity. Admittedly, both the religious and charitableinstitutions enjoy independent exemption from tax for theincome spent for such purposes. In similar cases, we held that,so long as funds are utilized for religious or charitable purposes,both being eligible for exemption, there is no need for thedepartment to look into whether a religious institution spendsfor charity or a charitable institution spends only for religion. In ITA131/10&c.cases -:2:- other words, so far as expenditure is for purposes which isexempted from tax, there is no scope for declining exemptionmerely because, the assessee spends partly for charities andpartly for religious activities. Following the same decision takenby us in I.T.A.116 of 2010 and connected cases, we dismiss theseappeals also filed by the Revenue. Sd/- C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. Sd/- P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. sl. /true copy/ P.S. To Judge.