Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.78 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs All India Hindu Mahasabha on 10 December, 1981

Dy. Cit vs Beer Shiva Educational Social Welfare ... on 27 October, 2006

8. There were also minor issues raised by the learned Departmental Representative regarding expulsion of the earlier members, which according to him, showed the real intent and purpose of the present members of the society. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Departmental Representative for the reason that the question to be seen is whether the objects are charitable and the income is applied for charitable purposes. The exemption under Section 11 does not depend upon the fact whether the trust was run by one set of people or the other set of people. What is to be seen is whether the objects are charitable in nature and the income is applied for the objects of the trust. This view finds support from the decision of Honble jurisdictional High Court in the case of All India Hindu Mahasabha (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 29 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Dy. Cit vs Rajneesh Foundation (Neo-Sannyas ... on 19 October, 2001

13. Shri Naresh Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of the assessing officer. He took us through the assessment order and particularly para 4 on p 2 of the assessment order and submitted that there was no change in circumstances and the majority view of the Tribunal prevailed. He took us through various paras of the Tribunals order and submitted that this Bench has no power to differ from the Tribunals view. He relied particularly on the speeches quoted by the TM and appearing at para 218 of the paper book in support of his submission that the views of Shri Rajneesh are against public interest. He also submitted that the settlement was not effective as it was outside the provisions of the Act. He relied on certain case law and particularly the observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. All India Hindu Mahasabha (1983) 140 ITR 748 (Del) at pp 768 and 769. He submitted that the Commissioner, Pune had granted registration to the assessee-trust under section 12A by order, dated 18-5-1998, on the basis of amended trust deed, but according to him, it is of no consequence, because prior to 1-4-1997, it was not mandatory for the Commissioner to pass such an order because law was subsequently amended and section 12A was brought on statute book with effect from 1-4-1997. He submitted that by amended clauses, the assessee-trust has changed the name from Rajneesh Foundation to Neo-Sanyas Foundation, but it is of no significance, because the preachings still continuesame preachings in 1988 continuewhich are against public policy. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot overrule the findings of the Special Bench of the Tribunal. He submitted that the discretionary power of the trustees to give power to certain personsin this case Acharya Rajneeshmake the trust as uncharitable. In support of this contention, he relied upon the observations on pp 1044 and 1045 on Chaturvedi &Pithisaria, Income Tax Law, 5th Edn. He further submitted that the T.M order of the Tribunal has given a clear finding that the preachings of Acharya Rajneesh are against public policy; the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into consideration the nature of the teachings and hence she is not competent to say that the teachings of Acharya Rajneesh are not against public policy. He, therefore, concluded that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be reversed and that the assessing officer deserves to be restored.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 30 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Deccan Gymkhana. on 10 February, 1988

36. The issues whether assessee is a public trust or not and whether it is a charitable trust or not are to be decided independently in the context of Income-tax Act. The registration under the Societies Registration Act or under the Bombay Public Trust Act is relevant but certainly not conclusive. The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. All India Hindu Mahasabha [1983] 140 ITR 748 shows that though the assessee in that case was registered under Societies Registration Act, the High Court held that it was not a charitable trust.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 52 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Adarsh Gram Trust on 3 December, 1984

In CIT v. All India Hindu Mahasabha [1983] 140 ITR 748 (Delhi), a question arose about the eligibility of an organisation known as All India Hindu Mahasabha for exemption from tax under Section 11(1) read with section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. A Bench of the Delhi High Court held that for the purpose of exemption under Section 11(1), the assessee should prove either that all its objects are charitable within the meaning of Section 2(15) or that a specific or identifiable part of its income has been set apart and it is obligatory to apply it for such purposes. It is not sufficient that some of the objects are charitable while some others are non-charitable, and if the trustees have discretion to apply the income to any of the objects, charitable or non-charitable, they can legitimately utilise the entire income for non-charitable purposes alone and so it cannot be held that the trustees were under a legal obligation to apply the income wholly or in part for charitable purposes. Thus, in a case where the objects of the trust or institution are distributive, each and every one of the ob-jects must be charitable in order that the trust may be upheld as a valid charity.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Indian National Congress vs Asstt. Cit on 9 April, 2001

44. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the assessed that the Supreme Court decision in the case of All India Hindu Mahasabha (supra) will not be applicable in the present case because all the facts and the aims and objects of the present assessed and the Sabha were not similar. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessed that, since the party's aims and objects were in tune with the preamble and directive principles and other provisions of the Constitution to work for the creation of a secular welfare State, the aims and objects of the party would fall within the scope of the expression 'any other object of general public utility'. It will be a different thing if the assessing officer finds and proves that the assessed's activity was not in tune with its aims and objects and its working was not towards the achievement of its objects of general public utility but any other object. The assessing officer has not brought any material on record to prove, so. He has also not pointed out any specific expenditure to show that the expenditure was incurred other than for the aims and objects of the party. It is noteworthy here that the aims and objects of association like FICCI, CII, etc., have been considered as objects of general public utility. The importance, place and role of the assessed-political party has been much broader in general public interest.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs All India Hindu Mahasabha on 8 May, 1984

This is at the instance of the Addl. CIT. The subject-matter of the reference has already been decided in another case by a Bench of this court. The citation is CIT v. All India Hindu Mahasabha (1983) 140 ITR 748 (Del). In that case a number of questions were referred of Which question Nos. 2 and 3 are the same as the ones now referred. The first question in that reference was as follows :
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1