Facts:
a)The assessee-society was formed to promote public health and medical education in India.
b)The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that assessee had received endorsement money for making endorsement of products of various corporate entities. Thus, he took the view that assessee society failed to comply with requirements of section 2(15) and rejected its exemption claim.
c)The CIT (A) opined that assessee had been able to demonstrate that it was engaged in promotion and advancement of the public health. Hence, its activities fell within the meaning of section 2(15).
d)The Aggrieved-revenue filed the instant appeal before Tribunal.
The Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under :
1)It was not the case of revenue that endorsement of healthy nutrition wasn't medically/scientifically incorrect. The assessee as per the mandate of its objects had endorsed products due to their health and nutritional benefits.
2)Therefore, activities of assessee to promote public health by endorsing products of various companies due to their health and nutritional benefits could not be said as violative of provisions of section 2(15).
3)Accordingly, assessee's claim for exemption of income was to be allowed. - ADIT V. INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION - (2015) 56 taxmann.com 271 (Delhi - Trib.)
