Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.29 seconds)
Documents citing Gurdayal Berlia Charitable Trust vs Fifth Income-Tax Officer on 11 June, 1990

Sri Mahamuni Trust vs Commissioner (Appeals) - V on 29 September, 2005

The above submissions were considered by the assessing officer. As per assessing officer, the investments have been made in financial year 2000-01 as cheques have been handed over and incentive on making deposit also converted into fixed deposit. During the year, part of the amount, i.e., Rs. 8,000 was deposited in October, 2000. As for the contention that only income arising from the investment made in contravention of section 11(5) be taxed, the learned assessing officer mentioned that sections 11(2) and 11(5) are very clear on the issue. The decision of Bombay Bench in the case of Gurdayal Berlia Charitable Trust v. Fifth Income Tax Officer (1990) 34 ITD 489, was distinguished as in that case investments were made prior to introduction of section 11 (5). The learned assessing officer relied on the above order of Tribunal to say that any violation under section 11(2)/11(5) will render the assessee "not eligible" for exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Puran Chand Dharmarth Trust, New ... vs Acit, Gurgaon on 9 April, 2018

• Gurdayal Berlia Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer 34 ITD 489 (Mum.)(Tribu.) Ld. CIT (A) has mentioned in para 3.6 at page 13 of the appeal order that the appellant as per the statement filed had claimed exemption u/s 11(1 )(d) amounting to Rs. 1,54,50,000/- which is relatable to the donation received towards the corpus of the 7 ITA Nos. 670 & 671/Del/2015 Dr. Puran Chand Dharmarth Trust trust.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Engg. Co-Ordination ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 July, 1992

Lastly, Mr. Ganesh referred to the decision of the Bombay Bench 'B' in the case of Gurdayal Berlia Charitable Trust v. Fifth ITO [1990] 34 ITD 489 for the proposition that if Section 13(1)(d) was violated, then only income from the prohibited investment alone would be taxed and that the entire income would not be so subjected to tax.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 53 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kanpur Subhash Shiksha Samiti, Kanpur vs Assessee on 27 April, 2010

Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bombay in the case of Gurdayal Berlia Charitable Trust Vs ITO [1990] 34 ITD 489 where it was held that :- "......We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and the material already brought on record and find force in the stand taken on behalf of the assessee. It is not in dispute that his is a trust which has been granted exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in respect of the income earned by it on its funds. Sub-section (2) of sec. 11, which was introduced with effect from 1-4-1971, requires that where 75% of the income of the trust is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes, such income, which is accumulated, will not be included in the total income if certain conditions are satisfied. One of the conditions prescribed is that money so accumulated is set apart for investment in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5). This condition is to be found in clause (b) of sub-section (2) which as it stand today, was introduced by the Finance Act, 1983, which became effective from 1-4-1983. The same Finance Act introduced sub-section (5) which prescribes the forms and modes of investing and depositing moneys accumulated by the trust which are referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2). Now, the requirement of investment of accumulated funds in specified securities, which has been introduced in the form of sub-section (5), is likely to create difficulties for old trusts which have been granted exemption under sec. 11 [as it stood before the introduction of sub-section (5)], but which are not in a position to invest in specified securities, its accumulated funds for some reason or the other. In the instant case it is a known fact that during the relevant previous year it was not possible to dispose of the shares in question, as there was hardly any buyer. Now, the income of the trust, which is receivable by the trustees, is called relevant income under Sec. 164(1) of the Act. A portion of such relevant income in the present case would suffer tax mainly because the condition of investment in specified securities as prescribed under Sec. 11(5) has not been fulfilled. But, non-fulfillment of such condition cannot be said to deprive the trust of the exemption of its other income which has already been granted to it in the earlier years. Therefore, in a case of this type, the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 164 along with the proviso there to would come income operation and only such income would be brought to tax at the maximum marginal rate which cannot be treated as exempt by virtue of non-fulfillment of condition of investment in specified securities as prescribed by Sec. 11(5). According to us, the line of argument/reasoning advanced by the learned Counsel for the assessee is fully fortified by the aforesaid circular No. 387 issued by the CBDT. There is nothing in Sec. 11(5) which can be interpreted to mean that if a portion of the accumulated income of the Trust is not invested in specified securities, the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act which has already been granted to the trust in earlier years would be withdrawn. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the trust cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 and only its income from dividend on 12,000 shares should be brought to tax at prescribed rate because such income is not from specified securities. We would, therefore, direct the ITO to accept the assessees contention in this regard and modify the assessments accordingly....".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Santokba Durlabhji Trust Fund , Jaipur vs Assessee on 5 November, 2014

It is submitted here that in the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has also followed the earlier judgment of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, in the 23 case of Gurdayal Berlia Charitable Trust v. Fifth ITO [1990] 34 ITD 489 (Bom). It was held in this judgment that non-fulfilment of the condition of investment under section 11(5) cannot deprive the trust of exemption of its other income, which has already been granted to it in the earlier years. The non-fulfilment of the condition under section 11 (5) would only make a portion of the relevant income as specified under section 164 (1), liable to tax. It was further held that in such a case, the provisions of section 164 (2), along with the proviso thereto, would come into operation and only such income would be brought to tax at the maximum marginal rate, which cannot be treated as exempt by virtue of non-fulfilment of the condition of investment under section 11(5) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Patanjali Yogpeeth (Nyas), Delhi vs Adit(Exemption), New Delhi on 9 February, 2017

In such circumstances, what can be done is that income derived from the shares, if taken into account in the books, may be brought to tax. However, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that there cannot be a complete denial of the exemption u/s 11(1)(a). Thus, ground Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed" (emphasis supplied) 72 Further in the case of Gurdayal Berlia Charitable Trust vs. ITO: 34 ITD 489 (Mum), the assessee was a public charitable trust, derived income by way of dividend, bank interest and donations. By virtue of the provisions of section 11(5), which came into effect from the assessment year 1984-85, it lost exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of dividend income. However, relying on the provisions of section 164(2), it contended before the ITO that only the dividend income was liable to tax, while the other income would still be exempt under section 11 of the Act. In the assessment framed under section 143(3) in respect of the assessment year 1984-85, the ITO rejected the assessee's claim. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the assessee's claim. On second appeal, the Tribunal held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 106 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next