A.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

ITTA/83/2008

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which denied the corporation exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for investments made in joint venture companies. The main legal issue was whether these investments constituted a violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, which pertains to investments made with a profit motive by charitable institutions. The court examined the nature of the investments and their compliance with the statutory provisions governing charitable trusts and institutions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2007] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752719 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2007
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax vs. Polisetty Somasundaram Charities, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. FR.Mullers Charitable Institutions, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Working Women's Forum, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orpat Charitable Trust, Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs Audyogik Shikshan Mandals, M/s. J. Sikile Foundation, Chennai v. DCIT, Exemption-Iii, Chennai, UCO Bank vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment (AWARE) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Narinder Mohan Foundation, Priyadarshini Educational Academy vs. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust, M/s.National Academy of Construction vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-1, Hyderabad, Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar and Company, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Bangalore vs. M/s. [ripro Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: A V KAUNDINYA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Exemption denial; Income Tax; Investment
• Section: 11(5); 13(1)(d); 151 CPC; 260-4

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos : 325 326 327 and32e OF 2OO7 79 80 81 82 and 83 of 2008 |.T.T.A. NO. 325 0F 2007 Income tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"8\" Hyderabad in l.T.A. No. 680 /Hyd/1997 ( Assessment Year 2002-2003 ) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll, Hyderabad dated 07-03-2007 in ITA No. 01 14lClT (4)-ll/05-06 preferred against the orderof the lncomeTaxOfficer, Ward -l ('1) Hyderabad dated 30-03-2005 in PAN /GlR No. 4-472 . Between: A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-l ['l], Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(ITTAMP. NO: 314 OF 2007) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the collection of demand pertaining to the assessment year 2002-2003 till pending disposal ofthe above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue ) I.T.T.A. NO. 326 0F 2007 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"8\" Hyderabad in l.T.A. No. 1104 lHydl 2004 ( Assessment Year.2001-2002 ) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll, Hyderabad dated 27-08-2004 in ITA No. 0032 /04-05 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward -l (1) Hyderabad dated 2.7-02-2004 in PAN /GlR No. A-472 Between: A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-l [1], Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(lTTAMP. NO: 315 OF 2007) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the collection of demand pertaining to the assessment year 2001-2002 fll pending disposal of the above Appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue ) |.T.T.A. NO. 327 0F 2007 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"8\" Hyderabad in l.T.A. No. 663 /Hyd/ 2001 ( Assessment Year 1998-1999 ) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll, Hyderabad dated 9-'10-2001 in ITA No.85/TR/R-1/ClT (A)-[/2001-2002 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward -7 (1) Hyderabad dated 23-03- 2001 in PAN /GlR No. 4-472 . Between: A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. 6-3-655/1/A. Sornajiguda, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-l [1], Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 'l OF 2OO7(ITTAMP. NO: 332OF 2OO7) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the collection of demand pertaining to the assessment year 1998 - 1999 till pending disposal of the above Appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue ) |.T.T.A. NO. 328 0F 2007 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"8\" Hyderabad in I.T.A. No. 129 lHydl 2OO1 ( Assessment Year 1997-1998 ) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -lV , Hyderabad dated '19-12-2000 in Appeal No 2O6NU.7 (1yClT (A)lV/2000-01 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward -7 (1) Hyderabad dated 31-03-2000 in PAN /GlR No. A-472 . Between: A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda, Hydglebqq. ...APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 [1], Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1OF 2007 ITTAMP. NO: 333 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the collection of demand pertaining to the assessment year 1997 - '1999 till pending disposal ofthe above Appeal in the interest ofjustice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue ) LT.T.A. NO. 79 0F 2008 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1 961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"8\" Hyderabad in l.T.A. No. 1133 lHydl 2003 ( Assessment Year 2000-2001 ) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll , Hyderabad daled 27-08-2003 in ITA No. 178 CIT (A)-ll/03-04 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward -1 (1) Hyderabad dated 31-03-2003 in PAN iGlR No. 4-472 Between: A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 [1], Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008 (ITTAMP. NO: 85 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the collection of demand pertaining to the assessment year 2000-2001 till pending disposal of the above Appeal in the interest ofjustice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue ) |.T.T.A. NO.80 0F 2008 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"8\" Hyderabad in lT.A. No 252 lHydl 2003 ( Assessment Year 1996-1997 ) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll , Hyderabad dated 05-1 '1-2002 in ITA Nos. 65 ,72 & 73 I CI (A) -ll / 02-03 preferred against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 (1) Hyderabad dated 26-03-2002 in PAN /GlR No. A472 Between: A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 6-3-855/1/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad ,..APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 [1], Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT 1.A. NO: 1 OF 2008 (ITTAMP. NO: 86 oF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the collection of demand pertaining to the assessment year 1996-1997 till pending disposal of the above Appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue ) |.T.T.A. NO.81 0F 2008 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-A of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"B\" Hyderabad In l.T.A. No. 254 lHydl 2003 ( Assessment Year '1999- 2000) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll , Hyderabad daled 05-11-2002 in ITA Nos. 64 I CI (A) -ll / 02-03 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward -1 (1) Hyderabad dated 28-03- 2002 in PAN /GlR No. A-472 . Between: A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 [1], Hyderabad Hyd APP erabad. ELLANT ...RESPONDENT I.A. NO: 1 OF 2008 (ITTAMP. NO: 87 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the collection of demand pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000 till pending disposal of the above Appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue ) |.T.T.A. NO. 82 0F 2008 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"8\" Hyderabad in l.T.A. No. 253 lHyd/ 2003 ( Assessment Year 1997 - 1998 ) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll , Hyderabad dated05-11-2002 in ITA Nos.65,72&73 lClf (A) -ll 102-03 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward -'1 (1) Hyderabad dated 28-03-2O02 in PAN /GlR No. 4-472 . Between: A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 [1], Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008 (ITTAMP. NO: 88 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the collection of demand pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000 till pending disposal of the above Appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue ) |.T.T.A. NO. 83 0F 2008 lncome tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"B\" Hyderabad in l.T.A No. 326 lHydl 2000 ( Assessment Year 1,996 - 1997 ) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -lV , Hyderabad dated 04-02-2000 in Appeal No. 333/lTO.4 (2) I CIT (A) -lV i 99- 2000 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward -40 Hyderabad dated 15-03-1999 in PAN /GlR No. 4-472 Between: A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 6-3-655/1/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1 ['1], Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: I OF 2008 (ITTAMP. NO: 89 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the collection of demand pertaining to the assessment year 1996-1997 till pending disposal of the above Appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue ) The Court made the following Common Judgment : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO I.T.T.A.Nos.325 326 327 AND 324 OF 2007 79, 80, 81, 82 AND 83 0F 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice AIok Aradhe) Mr. A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned Senior Counsel appears for the appellants. Mr. J.V Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for the Revenue. 2. These appeals have been filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). The subject matter of appeals pertains to the assessment years 1994-1995 to 2OO|-2OO2. 3. In all these appeals, the following substantial question of lalv arises for determination: \"Whether on the facts and circumstalces of the r:ase, the equity participation made by the appellant Corporation in its Joint Venture Companies lbr the attainment of its objectives could be treated as an investment in violation of Section 11(5) o 2 l I read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 leading to the denial of exemption granted under Section I 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and taxing its entire income?\" Therefore, the appeals were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the facility of reference, the facts in LT.T.A.No.83 of 2008 are referred to infra. 4. The factual backdrop in which the aforesaid substantial question of law arises for consideration in these Appeals need mention. For the facility of reference, facts from I.T.T.A.No.83 of 2008 are being referred. The assessee is an Undertaking of State Government which is engaged in the distribution of essential commodities provided by the State Government, on subsidy, in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The main object of the assessee is to bring down the prices of essential commodities to ensure equitable distribution to the persons below the poverty line at a controlled price. The State Government introduced Mid Day Mea_l Scheme for school going students and directed the assessee to supply rice, dal and edible oils to the Government educational institutions in the 3 State. In addition, the assessee was also required to procure edible rice brarr oil and supply the same at reasonable cost to the poorer sections of the society. 5. According to the assessee, on the advice of the: Central and State Government, the assessee during the year l98l-82 started a modern dal mill unit and edible grade rice bran oil unit has j oint ventures with 50% participation in r:quity !o ensure adequate supply of dal and edible grade rice bran oiI The assessee since 1983-84 has been held to be a charitabie institution within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 6 . The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 on 29.1 1' 1996 declaring an income of Rs.46, 87, 847 l- and an exemption under Section 11 of the Act n as claimed. The assessing officer, however, .held that surplus income of the assessee has not been accumulated in accordance with Section 1 1 (1) of the Act and therefore, the exemption under Section 1 1 of the Act is not availa.ble to the assessee. Accordingly, the claim of exemption under Section 4 11 of the Act was rejected and total income of the computed at Rs.9,81,28,695/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an Appeal before the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals), who, by arr order dated O4.O2.2OOO inter aliaheld that the assessee is not entitled to benefit of exemption under Section 1 1 of the Act. However, certain additions made by the assessing officer were directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. 7. The assessee thereupon Iiled an Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by a common order dated 3l.LO.2OO7 lras inter alia held that the investment made by the assessee in the joint ventures would fall under the category of investment made in violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and therefore, the assessee is not entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been Iiled. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the investments in the joint ventures were made only to achieve the primar5r object of the assessee to ensure adequate 5 supply of essential commodities to the poorer section of the society and school going children and'therefore, the sarne was not an investment with a proper motive. It is further submitted that the invesl-ment made by the assessee was in furtherance of its charitable purposes. Our attention has been invited to the dictionary expression 'investment' as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition and P.Ramanatha Ai)'ar's 'the Law Lexicon', second edition. A decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax vs. Polisetty Somasundaram Charitiesl has been referrecl to in support of his submission that the word 'investment' would be associated with profit motive. 9 . It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the assessee was found to be a charitable institution within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act and the expression 'charitable purposes' includes relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief, preservation of environment arrd advance of any other object of general public utility. Alternatively. it is submitted that Section 13(1)(d) of the Act 'Irgso] ra: rrR 377 (AP) 6 provides only the income from investment which is made in violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act is liable to tax and it does not result in denia1 of exemption under Section 1 1 of the Act. It is pointed out that the legislature amended Section 13(1Xd) of the Act with effect from 01.04.1983, whereby the amended provision sought to include in the tota,l income only that part of the income which has been earned from its investments and deposits made in violation of the statute. 10. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. FR.Mullers Charitable Institutions 2 , Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Working Women's Forum3, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orpat Charitable Trust a , and Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption5f, Pune vs Audyogik Shikshan Mandals. It is pointed out that SLP filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in M/s. J. Sikile Foundation, Chennai v. 'lzor+l aog lrn zgo (xar) 3 [2015] 53 taxmann.com 85 (Madras) ' 120151 55 taxmann.com 211 (Gujarat) t 120191 101 taxmann.com 247 (Bombay) 1 DCIT, Exemption-Iii, Chennai [2014] 51 Taxmann.com 378 (SC). Our attention has been invited to circular No'387, dated 06.07.ir994 and it has been contended that only theLt part of income which has earned from the investment or deposit made in violation of Section 13(i)(d) is liable to tax. It is contended that the aforesaid circular binds the authorities under the Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, reference ras been made to decision in UCO Bank vs. Commissioner of Income Tax6. 11. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Cc,unsel for the Revenue has supported the order passed by the Tribunal ald has pointed out that the joint venture companies in which the assessee made the investments are neither joint venture companles nor are government companies or corporations established ur-rder the Central, State or provincial cc,mpanies. It is further submitted that the investments made by the assessee is not covered by the exceptions provided in proviso to Section 1 3 ( 1 )(d) of the Act. It is submitted that the exemption provision should be interpreted strictly and \" ltgggl z3t rrR 88e (sc) once 8 the violation of Section 13(1Xd) of the Act is established, the entire income from such investment has to be taxed. It is therefore contended that the substantial question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the Revenue. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment (AWAREf vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxT in decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Narinder Mohan Foundation 8 , decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Priyadarshini Educational Academy vs. Director General of Income Tax (Investigationf e , decision of the Delhi High Court in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (I.T.A.No.321 of 2013 and batch, dated 18.03.2014), decision of the Telangana High Court in M/s.National Academy of Construction vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-1, Hyderabad (I.T.T.A.No.SOO of 2OO6 and batch, dated 31.08.2023) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs ' pootl zaz rrR 13 (AP) '[zoog] :rr trR 425 (Dethi) '1zor11 ::a trn:+z 1ae1 9 (Import), Mumbai vs' Dilip Kumar and Company 10 and Principal Commissioner of Income' Tax-III, Bangalore vs' M/s. [ripro Limited (Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022, dated 11..O7.2022 . 12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the rercord. Section 1 1 (1) of the Act manclates that any income derived from the property held under the trust wholly for charitable purpose or religious purpose is exempted from the total income to the extent to which such income is applied to charitable or religious purpose in India. However, Section 11 is subject to provisions of Section 13 of the Act' Section 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) provides that if any funds of the trust or charitable institution is invested or deposited before first of March, 1983, otherwise thzrn in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in Section 11 (5), continue to remain so invested or deposited after 3C.11.1983, the assessee sha1l not be entitled to the benefit of exemption. 10 (2018) 9 SCC 1 10 13. In the instant case, the assessee is a charitable institution and invested the funds in the shares of the joint venture companies, namely, (1) Sudha Modern Dhall MilI Limited (2) Delta Oils & Fats Limited (3) Sri Gumvaurappan Swamy Oil Foods & Fats Limited, and (4) Godavari Edible Bran Oil Limited, in the year 1982-83. The said joint venture companies are neither the Government Companies nor the Corporations established under Central or provincial Acts. The investment was made by the assessee as a promoter in the joint venture companies. The essential nature of the investment made by the assessee was arl investment in the shares of the joint venture companies. 14. The assessee continues to hold share even beyond the cut-off date i.e., 30.11.1983. The funds invested from the assessee corporation was from the profit of previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. Therefore, the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The assessee is, therefore, not entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 7L 15. Now, u,e may examine whether the entire income from such an invesrment made in violation of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, which has accrued to the assessee has to be taxed. From perusal of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is evident that the Legislature did not contemplate the benefit of denial of Section 1 1 of the Act, to the entire income and only the income from an investment made in violation of Section 13 (i) (d) of the Act is liable to tax. The aforesaid view l-ias been taken in DIT (Exemptionf v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbahai Foundation Trust [2001] 114 Taxman 19/249 ITR 5i)3 (Bom') and in IT (Exemptionf v. Agrim Charan Foundation [2002] 253 ITR 593 by Bombay and Delhi High Courts respectively. It is pertinent. to mention that the aforesaid decisions were relied on by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another v. FR. Mullers Charitable Institutions l2ol4) 363 ITR 230 (Kar). We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Division Benches of Bombay, Delhi and Karnataka High Courts. It is also pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenrte against the decision of Karnataka HLgh Court 72 in FR. Muliers Charitable Institutions (supra) has been dismissed by the Supreme Cour[ in the decision in M/s. J. Sikile Foundation, Chennai v. DCIT, Exemption-Iii, Chennai [20141 51 Taxmann.com 378 (SC). 16. For the aforementioned reasons, the substantial question of law framed in these Appeals is answered by stating that the investment made by the assessee in its joint venture companies is an investment made in violation of Section 1 1 (5) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act ald, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of exemption under Section 1 I of the Act. However, only the income from such an investment made in violation of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is liable to tax. 17. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the Incorne Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.680/Hyd/tgg7 (Ay 2OO2_ 2003) dated 3l.lO.2OO7; and the order dated 31.10.2007 in I.T.A.No. rloa / Hydl 2oo4 (Ay 2oot-2oo2l; r.T.A.No.663/Hyd/ 2oo1 (AY 1998-1999h I.T.A.No. 129lHydl 2oot (Ay 1997- 1998); : n.- 13 I.T.A.No. 1133 I Hyd/ 2OO3 (AY 2OOO-2OOII; I'T'A'No'21i2 / Hydl 2OO3 (AY 1995-19971; I.T.ANo.254/Hyd/2OO3 (A)' 1999- 2000); I.T.A.No.253l[ydl2OO3 (AY 1997-l999l; and I.T.A.No.326 lHydl2OOO (AY i996- 1997), is modified' 18. In the result, the Appeals are partly allowed Miscellar: eous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIST{AR ,,/ y/ SECTION OFFICER , o 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench \"8\" Hyderabad 2. the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll, Hyderabad 3. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -lV , Hyderabad 4. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 (1) Hyderabad 5. the lncome Tax Officer, Ward 40 Hyderabad 6. One CC to SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, Advocate [OPUCI 7. One CC to SRl. J. V. PRASAD (Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAx) [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATED:28t1112024 1t -qr J J OBJAil M o .t t Cr COMMONJUDGMENT 325 326 327 and32A OF 2007 79 80 81 82 and 83 of 2008 lTTA.No.325 ol 2007 ALLOIWNG ALL APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/ r. w ) I( "