Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: charitable trust objects in Yogiraj Charity Trust vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi on 30 March, 1976Matching Fragments
Clauses 11 and 16 of the deed give an uncontrolled discretion to the trustees to spend the whole of the trust fund on any of the non-charitable objects of the trust. The non-charitable objects authorise the opening and maintaining of commercial institutions where work at living wages can be provided to the poor and also to contribute to commercial, technical, industrial or commercial concerns, institutions, associations or bodies imparting any type of training or providing employment to persons. The Revenue contends that these clauses are clearly non-charitable. Each clause is independent and distinct, According to the Revenue it is neither ancillary nor secondary to the primary dominant purpose of the trust nor can it be said that these clauses subserve the main object of the trust. Engagement in commercial institutions giving employment on wages cannot be said to be charitable object. Some of the objects of the trust are non-charitable. The trustees have been authorised to utilize the income of the trust for any purpose mentioned in the Trust Deed.
The question is whether exemption can be granted where some objects are charitable and some non-charitable. Where there are several objects of a trust, some of which are charitable and some non-charitable, and the trustees in their discretion are to apply the income to any of the objects, the whole trust fails and no part of the income is exempt from tax. Where the objects are distributive, each and every one of the objects must be charitable in order that the trust might be upheld as a valid charity. If no definite part of the property or of its income is allocated to charitable purposes and it would be open to the trustees to apply the whole income to any of the non-charitable objects no exemption can be claimed. (See East India Industries (Madras) Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax(1)and Mohammad Ibrahim Riza v. C.I.T.(2) In order to claim the benefit of the exemption under section 4(3) (i) of the Act the property must be held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes. The only relaxation which may arise in some cases is that all the primary objects of the trust must be of a religious and charitable nature and the existence of any ancillary or secondary object which is not of a religious or charitable nature but which is intended to subserve the religious and charitable objects may not prevent the grant of an exemption. This is because such an ancillary or secondary object even though not of a religious or charitable nature is intended to effectuate the main and primary objects of the trust.
If the primary or dominant purpose of a trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust from being a valid charity. A clear distinction must be drawn between the object of a trust and the powers conferred upon the trustees as incidental to the carrying out of the object. If the only object of a turst is the construction and maintenance of a swimming bath which is a purpose of general public utility, the fact that the trustees are given the power to supply or sell refreshments to persons who resort to the bath would not make the trust any of the less charitable. Mere application of income to charity on the other hand will not avail to secure exemption if under the terms of the will or deed the income is applicable in the first instance to non-charitable objects and only the residue will go to charity. (See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1).
In Radhaswami Satsang Sabha (supra), case several industrial and commercial concerns were started for the benefit of the Satsanghis. Those were not run for individual profits nor were the profits distributed among the members. The concerns were started in furtherance of its objects of religious and charitable nature.
In the present case, the Income Tax Authorities found that the various industrial and commercial concerns were not started by Ram Krishna Dalmia in furtherance of the objects of the trusts. The concerns were started for the purpose of earning profits which were to be distributed to the share- holders who had invested share money in those concerns This Court in East India Industries (Madras) Private Limited v. C.I.T.(1) found that one of the objects of the trust was not for charitable or religious purposes. The object was to manufacture, buy, sell and distribute a pharmaceutical medicinal, chemical and other preparations. The other objects were charitable in nature. The Trust Deed in East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Limited (supra) case conferred power on the trustees to apply the whole or any part of the trust property or fund for all or any other purposes of the trust. This Court found that there was no special trust and no particular item of property had been burndened with the performance of any specific object of the trust. It was open to the trustees to utilize the income for any one of the objects of the trust to the exclusion of all other objects. It would not be a violation of the trust if the trustees devoted the entire income to the carrying on of a business of manufacture, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical, medicinal and other preparations. This Court held that the trust property could not be said to be wholly for religious or charitable purposes within the meaning of section 4(3) (i) of the Act. The present appeals are all of the type of East India Industries (Madras) Private Limited (supra) case and fall within the ruling in that case.