Itta/448/2014 Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. M/S. Project Management Institute Peal City Chapter

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH 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 JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.448of2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated18.01.2013 in I.T.A.No.217/Hyderabad/2012 in relation tothe assessment year 2011-12, on the following suggestedquestions of law. 1.Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and specificallywhen as per the MOU dated 01.01.2010entered between the assessee andM/s.Deloitte, it is mentioned that theassessee is in the business of providingconsulting and project managementservices, the order of the Hon’ble ITAT,holding that the activities of the assesseecould not be said to be inconsistent withthe objects of the Trust is not perverse?2.Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Hon’bleTribunal is correct in law holding that theaction of the Director of Income-tax(Exemptions) in cancelling the registrationis not in accordance with law? 3. Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Hon’bleITAT is correct in law in setting aside theorder of the Director of Income Tax(Exemption) dated 12.12.2011, cancellingregistration under Section 12AA of the ITAct, 1961 in the case of the assessee? The Director of Income-tax (Exemption) earlier grantedregistration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961to the assessee but thereafter, by order, dated 12.12.2011cancelled the same. The Director having considered thememorandum of understanding entered with the thirdparties, namely, Deloitte, Computer Society of India (CSI)and Microsoft, thought that the object of charitable activitieshas been defeated. Learned Tribunal after examining theentire issue on fact found that there has been no evidencethat 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 Tribunalrecorded in the impugned judgment and order. We are ofthe view the finding of the Director that assessee stoppedcharitable activity is not correct taking note of aims andobjects mentioned in trust deed. 1.Provide a common platform/net work toexchange knowledge, information and expertiseamong members.exchange knowledge, information and expertiseamong members. 2.Bring the best industry practices together bycross fertilization of ideas from industry andinstitutions.cross fertilization of ideas from industry andinstitutions.3.Promote and professionalize the projectmanagement body of knowledge through differentmeans like education, seminars, work shops,certifications and piloting.management body of knowledge through differentmeans like education, seminars, work shops,certifications and piloting. 4.Translate the knowledge, skill and bestindustry practices to benefit social, environmentaland government projects and other initiativeseventually to benefit the common man.industry practices to benefit social, environmentaland government projects and other initiativeseventually to benefit the common man. It is appropriate to record here that on the basis of theaforesaid objects, the assessee was earlier granted 4.Translate the knowledge, skill and bestindustry practices to benefit social, environmentaland government projects and other initiativeseventually to benefit the common man.industry practices to benefit social, environmentaland government projects and other initiativeseventually to benefit the common man. It is appropriate to record here that on the basis of theaforesaid objects, the assessee was earlier granted exemption. There has been no finding that the aforesaidobject clause has been defeated by undertaking anyventure. According to us, by the Memorandum ofUnderstanding, the objects of the trust/institution weresought to be achieved in better way, for which, exemptionwas granted. The learned Tribunal on fact found that theexpenditure incurred on account of “International studentleadership day” and “Student leadership competencybuilding” is not meager when compared to the total receipts. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as no element oflaw is involved to be decided by this Court. No order as tocosts. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 24[th] JULY, 2014. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni