Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2418 (5.25 seconds)
Documents citing Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.P.Iya Nadar Charitable Trust on 18 September, 2012

Thus, guided by the decision reported in [1980] 121 ITR 1 (Additional CIT Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (S.C.) and applying Section 11(4A) and Section 13(1)(bb), we have no hesitation in agreeing with the assessee's case what when the main object of the Trust is charitable and to afford relief to the poor, to promote education and medical relief, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Tribunal and thereby rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Fourth Income-Tax Officer vs S.M. Shafiq Trustee Of Karimia Trust And ... on 5 March, 1993

5. Standing counsel for the Department, Mr. Rajgarhia contended that, after the insertion of this provision in Section 13, there was an embargo placed on the carrying on of business and, therefore, the trust can no longer claim exemption from taxability in respect of income derived from carrying on of business unless the business which the trust was carrying on was being carried out in the course of the actual carrying out of one of the primary objects of the trust. But learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. N. K. Poddar, referred to judicial pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in their several judgments particularly in CIT v. P. Krishna Warrior [1964] 53 ITR 176, CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 and Addl CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1. In these decisions of the Supreme Court, their Lordships distinguished the case of business held under the trust and those which the trust was carrying on or acquired on its own volition. According to their Lordships, the embargo was placed only on the trusts claiming to be public charitable trusts which were found to be carrying on any business or acquiring any business on their own. Such trusts could not claim exemption from taxability in respect of the income derived from such business as they themselves were engaged in to carry on those businesses or acquired such businesses. But where the business was treated as a property, and had been settled under trust by the settlor, the income derived from such business was not affected by the aforesaid provision contained in Section 13(1)(bb). Therefore, the claim of the assessee-trust for exemption in respect of income derived from running of the two cinemas which were settled under trust for carrying out the various objects of the trust by the settlor in 1945 could not be denied. The trust has not acquired the business or initiated the carrying on of the business. The trust came into effect only because two cinema houses treated as property were settled under the trust by the author of the trust.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Srinagar Development Authoity , ... vs Assessee on 25 July, 2016

"We have given our most anxious consideration to this question, particularly since one of us, namely, P.N. Bhagwati J, was a party to the decision in Cloth Traders' case.............. we are compelled to reach the conclusion that Cloth Traders case must be regarded as wrongly 38 ITA No.444(Asr)/2010 decided. The view taken in that case............must be held to be erroneous and it must be corrected.. To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of the judicial conscience.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur on 21 June, 2022

"The final conclusion that if a surplus is made by an educational society and ploughed back to construct its own premises would fall out of Section 10(23C) is to ignore the language of the section and to ignore the tests laid down in Surat Art Silk Cloth case (CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer's Association [1980] 2 SCC 31) Aditanar case (Aditanar Educational Institution v. CIT [1997] 3 SCC 346) and American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute v. CBDT [2008] 10 SCC 509). It is clear that when a surplus is ploughed back for educational 43 purposes, the educational institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Credai Bengal , Kolkata vs Ito (Exemption), Ward - 1(1), Kolkata , ... on 3 June, 2019

It was clearly inconsistent with the settled principles to hold in the aforesaid case that if the dominant or primary object of a trust was 'charity' under the fourth head 'any other object of general public utility', it was permissible for such an object of general public utility, to augment its income by engaging in trading or commercial activities. In retrospect, it seems that it would have been better for Parliament to have deleted the fourth head of charity "any other object of general public utility" from the ambit of the definition of 'charitable purpose' while enacting s. 2(15) rather than inserted the words "not involving the carrying on of any other activity for profit", thereby creating all this legal conundrum". When the Government had not accepted the recommendation of the Direct Tax Laws Committee in Chapter 2 (Interim Report, December, 1977) for the deletion of the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profits", by suitable legislation, it was impermissible for this Court by a process of judicial construction to achieve the same result. It is wrong to think that all springs of charity in India will dry up if true effect is given to s. 2(15) in accordance with the minority judgment in the Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Association's case. People who are truly charitable do not think of the tax benefits while making charities. One must realise that even the poor who do not pay income tax can be charitable and their charities made at great personal inconvenience are commendable indeed. One need not go in search of charitable persons amongst the taxpayers only. Still the majority view has got to be followed now.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 34 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S. Rajasthan Cricket Association, ... vs Add.Cit. Range-2, Jaipur on 25 November, 2020

"The final conclusion that if a surplus is made by an educational society and ploughed back to construct its own premises would fall out of Section 10(23C) is to ignore the language of the section and to ignore the tests laid down in Surat Art Silk Cloth case (CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer's Association [1980] 2 SCC 31) Aditanar case (Aditanar Educational Institution v. CIT [1997] 3 SCC 346) and American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute v. CBDT [2008] 10 SCC 509). It is clear that when a surplus is ploughed back for educational purposes, the educational institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 76 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tribune Trust Chandigarh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Chandigarh ... on 23 December, 2016

However, this judgment was overruled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT (Addl) vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs Assn, (1980) 2 SCC 31. The appellant was exempted from tax on the basis of assessment under section 11 from the years 1979-80 to 1983-84. With effect from 01.04.1984, the appellant was exempted by the CBDT under section 10(23C)(iv). The exemption was renewed from time to time, the last of which was granted on 28.02.2007, applicable for the Assessment Year 2007-08 onwards. The appellant accordingly has been claiming exemption from paying income-tax.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next