• Kandivali West Mumbai 400067, India
  • 022 39167251
  • support@email.com
October 22, 2022

Non-voluntary donations are not deductible under section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act

by CA Shivam Jaiswal in Income Tax, Legal Court Judgement

Non-voluntary donations are not deductible under section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act

Facts and issues of the case

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. CIT(A)-7/138/16- 17 vide order dated 28.02.2018 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeals:-

The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,44,14,182/- being specific donation received by the appellant trust as corpus donation as income of the assessee. It is submitted that voluntary contributions received by the assessee trust from all the donors with a specific direction that the same shall form part of corpus of the trust can never be considered as income of the appellant. It is submitted that the addition so incorrectly and illegally made be deleted.

The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in disregarding the evidences and materials filed clearly showing that the amount of Rs. 7,44,14,182/- were received by the appellant trust as donation to the corpus, were directly credited to the trust fund and was never in the nature of income as per past consistent practice followed and accepted by the income tax dept. It is submitted that the same be so held now and the addition of Rs.7,44,14,182/- made as income of the appellant trust be deleted.

The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now.Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing of appeal.

The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings it was observed that the Assessee had received corpus donationon which exemption was claimed under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. The Assessee was required to explain the nature of the corpus donations and to explain the source of such donation.

The AO observed that the contribution was received from milk supplying societies (Donor MSS). The Donor MSS sell their milk to the Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd,(MDCMPUL), a parent body which is being processedand further sold as packaged milk and other milk products. The contribution made by Donor MSS, was infact linked to the amount of Milk fat supplied by these Donor MSS to the MDCMPUL and the amount of contribution was calculated as per a given formula – Rs. 2/- per KG Fat supplied in every 10 days milk cycle.

It was, therefore, apparent that the contribution was not voluntary contribution but was compulsorily collected from Donor MSSand therefore, could not be treated as corpus donation. Accordingly, Ld. Assessing Officer held that Corpus donations are exempt under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act subject to the condition that the donation is made voluntarily and with a specific direction by the donor that such donation shall form part of corpus. The discretion as to whether the donor wants to donate or not, has to lie with the donor and it needs to be exercised voluntarily. In this instant case a MSS which has to sell milk to MDCMPUL needsto pay a certain amount which is more in the nature of a cess, at a rate fixed, from time to time. The amount of cess is determined by the Governing Council ofDURDA- Assessee.

The amount of Cess is determined from the quantityof milkfat supplied by the Donor MSS to the MDCMPUL. It is part of the Rules and Regulations of DURDA that it would be collecting Cess from the members. This Cess is to be treated as Corpus Donation. Since the Cess is linked to the Quantity of Milk fat supplied, the payer has no choice or option to alter the amount of Cess it is required to pay. The fact that this Cess is treated as Corpus Donation is not known to the payer except when a letter to this effect is obtained by DURDA from the un-suspecting Donor MSS as a matter of routine. MDCMPUL keeps a pre-printed format wherein only the name of the payer Mandli, its code Number, Taluka and Amount is left blank to be filled at the time of receiving the Cess amount. The Corpus as understood, is the capital of an Assessee, a capital of a society, a capital of a trust, a capital of aninstitution.Adonation would qualify as corpus donation if the following three conditions are satisfied cumulatively:

 The receipt is in the nature of donation

The donation is made voluntarily

The donor gives a specific direction that the donation is for the corpus.

Observation by the court

The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that in the instant facts Assessee has received cess from the members, against the sales made by Donor MSS to MDCMPUL, and therefore, such fees / cess paid against sale of Milk does not qualify as donation. Also, such cess is not voluntary for the reason that firstly, the Donor is paying fees in lieu of the sales it makes to MDCMPUL and if the donor wishes to be avail services of the Association or its associates he has to pay the cess. Secondly the Donor MSS also does not haveany discretion regarding the quantum of fees which fixed by the Governing Council of the DURDA.

Thus, the Ld. Assessing Officer concluded that the Cess receipts of DURDA cannot be termed as voluntary donation. The AO also observed that for any donation to be treated as corpus donation, it is necessary that a written direction from the donor is obtained in which donor has to clearly express his intention that the donation is made for the corpus of the organization. Expression of a particular intention can arise only when the concerned person has discretion to choose between options. Further the origin of such discretion comes from the knowledge that he is having different options. In the instant facts, there is nothing at all to show that the donors had any knowledge in respect of corpus donation and that a part of the sale consideration of milk fat supplied by it was to be treated as corpus donation. Therefore, the question of having discretion and exercising his choice and expressing intent does not arise. Therefore, there has been no specific direction from the applicants to treat these fees as corpus donation. To avail exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, all the three conditions are to be satisfied cumulatively. On the basis of the all of the above, the Ld. Assessing Officer concluded as below:

Perusal of the Rules and regulations of DURDA point to an inescapable inference that the claim of exemption under Section11(1)(d) in respect of the CESS received from the Donor MSS was in paper, in zest and not in right earnest. The receipts are Cess received from Donor MSS in lieu of the sale of Milk. Such receipts are not donation receipts. The quantum and nomenclature of the Cess have been decided by the Assessee. The Donor MSS have no discretion and they did not make any donation. The rate was fixed by the Assessee against a promise and not voluntary.

There was no voluntary and conscious expression on intention by the Donor MSS that such payments be treated as corpus donation. There was no specific direction from the Donor MSS.In view of above the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Assessee’s claim that Rs. 7,44,14,182/-be treated as corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act.

 Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made earlier before Revenue Authorities and submitted that all conditions for donations qualifying for exemption for Corpus donation are satisfied in the instant facts: (a) There is a specific direction that the donation be treated as Corpus donation (he drew our attention to page 33 of Paper-Book in support of his contention) (ii) The amount so donated qualifies as “Contribution” and the Members so contributing are not getting anything back in return in lieu of such donation and (iii) the contribution is ”Voluntary” and the mere fact that it is linked to production of milk cannot lead to the conclusion that it is not voluntary. He submitted that the members themselves have “voluntarily” decided to give contribution to the assessee. The methodology of linking corpus donation to the production of milk has been adopted and agreed to by the “Members” as and the assessee has not adopted the methodology. Accordingly, the donation qualifies as “Corpus donation” eligible for exemption was claimed under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act.

In response, Ld. Departmental Representative invited our attention to page 12/42 of Paper-Book to submit that clearly the donation is not “Voluntary” and therefore donation does not qualify as “Corpus donation” eligible for exemption was claimed under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the resolution to collect additional donation has been has been decided by the assessee itself with no discretion of the Donors. Accordingly, donation does qualify as “Corpus donation” eligible for exemption was claimed under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act.

The contents of the above resolution clearly show that the contributions are not “Voluntary” in nature. The assessee has suo moto passed a resolution to “collect” donation form the made by Milk Producers, which goes contrary to the assertion made by the assessee that contributions are “Voluntary” in its character. Apparently, the Milk producers do not any choice or say in the matter whatsoever. Merely producing a receipt which states that the amount has been paid towards the corpus fund of the appellantcannot lead us to accept that the contribution qualifies as a “Corpus donation” when notably these receipts do not even state the specific purpose that they are being given for. Moreover, as noted above, the donations are clearly not “voluntary”.

The quantum of the cess, as well as the mode of computation thereof,has been decided by the Assessee and the Donor have no discretion or say in the matter. In Russel v. Vestry of St. Giles 3E & B 416, Lord Campbell observed ‘voluntary contributions’ here do not mean annual subscriptions paid for value received or expected to be received by the party paying, but means a gift made from disinterested motives for benefit of others. In Society of Writers v. I.R. 2 TC 257, the Court held that the entrance fees and subscriptions paid by entrants to a society or institution as a condition precedent to their membership and as the price of admission to the privileges and benefits of the society or institution are given under a contract and are not voluntary.

The Delhi High Court in the case of DivineLightMission[2005] 146 Taxman 653 (Delhi) held that membership fee and subscription amounts received by trust/society from its members cannot be characterized as voluntary contribution within meaning of expression ‘fund’ in Section 12. In view of the above discussion, court found no infirmity in the order of Ld. Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and we are of the view that the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.


In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.


Enter your email address:

Subscribe to faceless complainces

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share
Follow by Email