Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (2.14 seconds)
Documents citing Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And Hazrat ... on 15 October, 1969

Sivadas K.R vs Ramavilasom N.S.Karayogam No.690 on 19 December, 2025

In P.T.Ram Chandra Shukla v. Shree Mahadeoji Mahabirji and Hazrat Ali Kanpur [1969 (3) SCC 700], the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a dedication of property for a religious or charitable purpose can be made orally. While holding that the dedication for the promotion of a particular game or sport is not a charitable trust under the Hindu Law, the Supreme Court held that the trust created for the maintenance and upkeep of a wrestling ground is not a valid charitable trust.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Controller Of Estate Duty, Bombay ... vs Bhagwandas Velji Joshi And Others on 29 September, 1980

38. By not taking into account this passage, the Tribunal thought that the passages which followed it dealt with all modes by which a Hindu may appropriate property for a specific religious or charitable purpose. In this section of his book, Mr. Gupte was concerned only with the first mode of transfer, namely, the a trust under the ordinary law of the land. There are a number of authorities which have laid down that a dedication for a religious purpose to a family idol or deity or to two a temple once made is irrevocable, in none of these cases, however, was there any question of a power of revocation because all these dedications were made under Hindu law by religious ceremonies performed for that purpose and which from the nature of things could not containing a power of revocation in favour of the settlor. The object of these ceremonies would be to dedicate property to God for the purpose of obtaining spiritual benefit and no one would, as a part of these ceremonies, add a ride that the was dedicating, property to God on condition that he may withdraw it when he like because such a rider might have a boomerang effect of correspondingly having the spiritual benefit withdrawn at the same time, what had happened in those cases was that, none the less, in spite of the dedication subsequently, the person who had made the dedication or his heirs had sought to go back on the dedication a attempted to retrieve the property, which attempts failed. It is unnecessary to refer to all these authorities merely in order to point out the above position, which they have set out, and then to state that they have no relevance to the facts of the present case. A complete discussion on the manner in which property can be dedicated for a religious or a charitable purpose under the Hindu law will be found in Ramchandra Shukla v. Shree Mahadeoji, , wherein it is observed at para. 16 of the judgment (p. 464) :
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ootacamund Gymkhana Club on 1 March, 1976

18. The learned counsel for the revenue brought to our notice a decision of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shukla v. Shree Mahadeoji . Some time prior to 1830 a wrestler setup and maintained an Akhara where wrestlers of both Hindu and Muslim communities could come for wrestling. The property consisted of a groveland. The income from it as well as his own other resources were utilised for promoting the wrestling. He installed two idols and a picture of a Muslim in order to attract wrestlers of, both the communities. The question before the Supreme Court was whether there was a valid trust under Hindu Law. The Supreme Court, after referring to the relevant authorities under Hindu Law, came to the conclusion that there was no trust for a charitable purpose. In pronouncing on any particular object of a bounty as to whether it falls within the definition of " charitable purpose ", the courts must in general apply the standard of customary law and common opinion amongst the community to which the parties interested belong : See In re Trustees of the Tribune [1939] 7 ITR 415 at 422 (PC). It was, therefore, necessary for the Supreme Court to find out whether there was a charitable purpose so as to enable the property being tied down in perpetuity in the above case in the light of the Hindu notions of a charitable purpose. The present is a case where the assessee is a club incorporated under the Companies Act. The club cannot be taken to belong to any particular religion, so that the customary notions of the laws applicable to that religion could be given operative force in construing the trust. We do not, therefore, find it possible to apply this decision to the facts herein.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 29 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

M/S Kalinga Cultural Trust,, Hyderabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 2 April, 2014

"So for as the provision of s. 11(1)(a) is concerned, no distinction is made between charitable and religious purposes. A charitable institution can have religious purposes; whereas a religious institution may be partly charitable. Even otherwise relief and help to the poor, medical help to the needy, looking after of deity and temples (mosque, church included) are no doubt religious purposes but these are also considered as charitable in India. Therefore, the view taken that exemption under s. 11(1)(a) cannot be allowed to a charitable trust as it is also carrying on some purposes which are termed as 'religious' is totally unwarranted.--Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs. Mahadeoji Mahabiriji & Hazrat All Kanpur & Ors. AIR 1970 SC 450 applied; CIT vs. Social Service Centre (2001) 169 CTR (AP) 130 : (2001) 250 ITR 39 (AP), Addl.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Barkate Saifiyah Society on 3 November, 1993

10. While dealing with what is "religious" or "charitable purpose" it is observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Shukla v. Shree Mahadeoji, AIR 1970 SC 458, that there is no line of demarcation in the Hindu system between religion and charity. Indeed, charity is regarded as part of religion. While discussing this aspect, the Supreme Court has further observed as under (at page 464) :
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M B Shah - Full Document

C I T Kota vs M/S Emmanuel Bible Instute Samiti on 28 November, 2017

"So far as the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) is concerned, no distinction is made between charitable and religious purposes. A charitable institution can have religious purposes; whereas a religious institution may be partly charitable. Even otherwise relief and help to the poor, medical help to the needy, looking after the deity and temples (mosques, church included) are no doubt religious purposes but these are also considered as charitable in India. Therefore, the view taken that exemption u/s 11(1)(a) cannot be allowed to a charitable trust as it is also carrying on some purposes which are termed as 'religious' is totally unwarranted. Pt Ram Chandra Shukla vs Mahadeoji (13 of 18) [ ITA-387/2011] Mahabirji & Hazrat Ali Kanpur & Ors, AIR 1970 SC 450 applied; CIT vs Social Service Centre (2001), 169 CTR (APP) 130 (2001), 250 ITR 39 (AP), Addl.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document
1   2 3 Next