Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

February 2015

Education: Charitable purpose- Exemption u/s. 11-A. Y. 2007-08-Pre-sea and post-sea training for ships and maritime industry-Object of trust educational- Trust entitled to exemption u/s. 11

By K. B. Bhujle Advocate
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
DIT vs. Samudra Institute of Meritime Studies Trust; 369 ITR 645 (Bom):

The assessee was a trust established with the purpose of administering and maintaining technical training institutions at various places in India for pre-sea and post-sea training of ships and maritime industry as a public charitable institution for education, that is to provide on board and offshore training and continuing technical education for officers, both on the deck and engine side. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption u/s. 11. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has applied the correct test in concluding that the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act can be availed of by the respondent assessee. The Tribunal in paragraph 9.6 of the impugned order concludes that the assessee is giving training in the above area to seamen. All the courses may not be approved by the Director General of Shipping but that by itself is no ground to hold that the purpose is not charitable.

ii) The exemption u/s. 11 can be claimed and bearing in mind the object of the trust. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the CIT(A) have approached the issue correctly and in the light of the definition so also the tests laid down came to a factual conclusion that the respondent is entitled to exemption u/s. 11.

iii) This is not a case where the purpose can be said to run a coaching class or a centre. This is an institution which imparts education in the area of pre-sea and post-sea training to seamen so as to prepare them for all the duties. In such circumstances, we do not find that the concurrent findings of fact are vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record or perversity enabling us to entertain this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”

You May Also Like