Read the article below in 15+ Indian languages by selecting your preferred language using the translation tool in the top left corner of the screen.
The Delhi High Court in a judgment delivered on April 24, 2025, has clarified that a charitable trust’s entitlement to tax exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not jeopardized merely because it makes reasonable payments to related parties for services rendered. The judgment rendered by court in Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Delhi v. IILM Foundation (ITA 179/2023) provides important guidance on the interpretation of Section 13 of the Act, which governs the conditions under which exemptions can be denied to charitable institutions.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between IILM Foundation, a registered charitable trust engaged in educational activities, and the concerned Revenue authorities. The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) had cancelled the trust’s registration under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, citing payments made to Malvika Rai, the Chairperson of the aforementioned trust.
The Department argued that these payments constituted a violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3 of the Income Tax Act, which prohibits trusts from allowing income or property to be used for the benefit of specified related parties. Although the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled in favor of the trust, the Revenue Department then challenged this decision before the DHC.
Legal Issues
The central issue before the Court was whether reasonable payments made by a charitable trust to a person falling within the ambit of Section 13(3) — a ‘prohibited person’ — for bona fide services could nonetheless lead to forfeiture of tax exemptions under Sections 11 and 12. Section 13(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act provides that payments to related parties are not automatically treated as benefits unless they are made ‘in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services.’ Thus, the dispute hinged on whether the payments made were reasonable and justified.
Key Findings of the Court
1. Interpretation of Section 13(2)(c):
The Court held that Section 13(2)(c) permits charitable trusts to compensate related parties for services rendered, provided that the payments are reasonable. Only payments that are excessive in relation to the value of services would attract the prohibitions under Section 13(1)(c).
2. Reasonableness of Payments:
The Court examined the evidence presented by the IILM Foundation and found that the payments made to Malvika Rai were commensurate with the services she had provided. It was not a case of siphoning trust funds for personal enrichment, but of bona fide compensation for actual work performed.
3. Mere Existence of Related Party Transactions Not Sufficient:
The Court emphasized that the mere fact that a related party has been paid does not automatically lead to denial of exemptions. The critical test is whether the payment is excessive. In this case, the Court found no evidence of unreasonableness or improper benefit.
4. Validation of ITAT’s Findings:
The Court upheld the ITAT’s conclusion that the cancellation of the trust’s registration was unwarranted. It noted that the Income Tax Department had failed to establish that the payments were excessive or unjustified.
Implications for Non-Profit Organizations
This judgment has significant implications for charitable trusts and non-profit organizations operating under the regulatory framework of the Income Tax Act:
1. Related Party Transactions Permitted Within Limits:
Charitable trusts can engage individuals or entities related to the trust for professional services without fear of losing tax exemptions, provided that payments are reasonable, properly documented, and reflective of the value of services rendered.
2. Need for Documentation and Transparency:
Non-profits must maintain detailed records substantiating the nature of services, the necessity of engaging related parties, and the basis for determining remuneration. Transparency is key to defending such transactions if scrutinized by tax authorities.
3. Clarification relating to Section 13:
The ruling affirms that the involvement of a ‘prohibited person’ under Section 13(3) is not per se a ground for denial of exemptions. Only transactions resulting in excessive payments or unjustified benefits will attract disqualification.
Conclusion
This decision highlights the balanced approach to regulating non-profits. It protects the integrity of charitable purposes by guarding against misuse of trust income while also recognizing the practical necessity of engaging capable individuals, even if they are related parties. However, charitable organizations must exercise due diligence in structuring such engagements, ensuring that compensation is fair, reasonable, and properly documented. This ruling reaffirms that compliance with tax exemption conditions hinges on avoiding related party transactions and maintaining reasonableness, transparency, and fidelity to charitable objectives.