Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

While dealing with section 11, a Division Bench of this court in the case in the case of Addl. CIT v. A.A. Bibijiwala Trust (1975) 100 ITR 516, has observed as follows (at page 523):

''Similarly, in the case before us also, the property is settled upon wakf that is, for purposes which are considered to be religious, pious or charitable according to the notions of members of the Dawoodi Bohra community and further the income in the corpus of these properties settled upon trust must be used for Dawat purposes, that is, for the benefit of the Dawoodi Bohra community. Though the words of clauses 6,7 and 8 are very wide in terms, in fact, that apparently wide discretion of the Mullaji Saheb is bound down by the two factors, namely, that this is a wakf, a dedication by a Mussalman of property for purposes which, according to the notion of Mussalmans, are pious, religious or charitable, and secondly, it must be used for Dawat purposes, that is, for purposes which go to benefit the Dawoodi Bohra community. With these two limitations operating on him, even the apparently wide discretion conferred upon the Mullaji Sahab as Dai-ul- Mutlak for the time being is confined within the four corners of these two overriding factors and in view of these two overriding factors it must be held, that the properties in question settled by the two deeds of January 12,1937, were settled upon trust for charitable or religious objects and were, therefore, entitled to exemption under section 11(1 )(a) of the Act of 1961. We must take it clear that the real controversy between the parties is regarding exemption u/s 1 l(l)(a) of the act of 1961 and not whether the trusts are wholly religious or wholly charitable. Even if the trusts are partly religious and partly charitable, so long as no part of the income or corpus can be utilized for a purpose which is not either charitable or religious, there is no doubt that the exemption u/s ll(l)(a) will be available to the assessee. In the instant case, we find that, in spite of the apparently wide language of the clauses of the dead of trust, in fact reading the trust deed as a whole, it transpires, particularly in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Advocate- General of Bombay v. Yusuf Ali, AIR 1921 Bom 338, that the apparently wide discretion has to be exercised within the four corners of the wakf and for Dawat purposes. What are Dawat purposes have been described byMarten. J., at page 1102, in Advocate-General of Bombay v. Yusuf Ali, AIR 1921 Bom 338, and, in our opinion, it is only within the four corners of Dawat purposes as recognized by the Dawoodi Bohra community that the Mullaji Saheb can use the corpus or the income of this fund".

While dealing with section 11, a Division Bench of this court in the case in the case of Addl. CIT v. A.A. Bibijiwala Trust (1975) 100 ITR 516, has observed as follows (at page 523):

''Similarly, in the case before us also, the property is settled upon wakf that is, for purposes which are considered to be religious, pious or charitable according to the notions of members of the Dawoodi Bohra community and further the income in the corpus of these properties settled upon trust must be used for Dawat purposes, that is, for the benefit of the Dawoodi Bohra community. Though the words of clauses 6,7 and 8 are very wide in terms, in fact, that apparently wide discretion of the Mullaji Saheb is bound down by the two factors, namely, that this is a wakf, a dedication by a Mussalman of property for purposes which, according to the notion of Mussalmans, are pious, religious or charitable, and secondly, it must be used for Dawat purposes, that is, for purposes which go to benefit the Dawoodi Bohra community. With these two limitations operating on him, even the apparently wide discretion conferred upon the Mullaji Sahab as Dai-ul- Mutlak for the time being is confined within the four corners of these two overriding factors and in view of these two overriding factors it must be held, that the properties in question settled by the two deeds of January 12,1937, were settled upon trust for charitable or religious objects and were, therefore, entitled to exemption under section 11(1 )(a) of the Act of 1961. We must take it clear that the real controversy between the parties is regarding exemption u/s 1 l(l)(a) of the act of 1961 and not whether the trusts are wholly religious or wholly charitable. Even if the trusts are partly religious and partly charitable, so long as no part of the income or corpus can be utilized for a purpose which is not either charitable or religious, there is no doubt that the exemption u/s ll(l)(a) will be available to the assessee. In the instant case, we find that, in spite of the apparently wide language of the clauses of the dead of trust, in fact reading the trust deed as a whole, it transpires, particularly in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Advocate-General of Bombay v. Yusuf Ali, AIR 1921 Bom 338, that the apparently wide discretion has to be exercised within the four corners of the wakf and for Dawat purposes. What are Dawat purposes have been described byMarten. J., at page 1102, in Advocate-General of Bombay v. Yusuf Ali, AIR 1921 Bom 338, and, in our opinion, it is only within the four corners of Dawat purposes as recognized by the Dawoodi Bohra community that the Mullaji Saheb can use the corpus or the income of this fund".

14. In "CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat" 364 ITR 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"The assessee was a registered public trust under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. It filed an application for registration before the Commissioner as envisaged under section 12A, read with section 12AA for availing the exemption under section 11.

• The Commissioner opined that the assessee was a charitable trust and since the object and purpose of the trust was confined only to a particular religious community, the same would attract the provisions of section 13(1 )(b) and, therefore, prayer made for registration of the trust was declined.

23. From the above, it is clear that the object was to catch the 'unaccounted money' which was brought in as Tax Free Income in the hands of the Charitable Trusts and this law was never meant for taxing the Petty Charities. The Legislature intended to tax the unaccounted money or black money which was brought in the books of charitable trusts in bulk and this law was not meant for taxing the small and general charities collected by the Genuine Charitable Trusts.

24. The object of the amendment has further been made clear by the Hon'ble Finance Minister, in his Budget Speech, reported at 281 ITR (St.) 57 in the said ITR. The relevant para 168 thereof reads as under:-