Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)
Al-Madeena Charitable Trust vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 November, 1999 cites

Dr. K. George Thomas vs The C.I.T. Kerala, Ernakulam on 23 September, 1985

20. Coming to the alternative plea that the voluntary contributions should be treated as gifts or capital receipts and are not taxable, the same cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. K. George Thomas case (supra). This was the case of an assessce who got educated in the USA and came to India. He started running a magazine 'Viswa Decpam' and for achieving this object collected money through the Indian Gospel Mission in the USA. Subsequently the assessee started publishing a newspaper called 'Kerala Dwani'. The assessee received/ collected donations from abroad and returned a loss income under the head 'business'. When the assessee was asked to explain the credits which were noticed on scrutiny, the assessee said that they were donations received from USA through an organisation known as Indian Christian Crusade, USA. The names of the persons who had donated were not available. It was contended that the receipts were purely personal gifts for the personal qualities of the assessee and that the payments were voluntary. When the matter was carried before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the receipts were casual and non-recurring in nature and did not arise in the course of exercise of any vocation. The High Court found that the receipts had arisen from the exercise of an occupation by the assessee and should have been included in the total income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the assessee was carrying on a vocation of practising against atheism and the donations received by him from USA for the furtherance of the objects of his vocation were not casual and nonrecurring receipts. In the instant case of the assessee, the assessee has produced certificates from the donors who had donated more than Rs. 6,000 to establish that they are donations towards the corpus. Since we have held that the asscssee's business is not incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust, the benefit of section 11(1)(d) which reads as under--
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 97 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam And ... on 18 July, 1979

The learned counsel for the assessee further invited our attention to the assessee's letter dated 3-2-1993, page 24 of the paper book, by which the assessee states that the assessee is giving training to industrial trainees in its institution and for the implementation of the objects of the trust the assessee was trying to earn income through printing work jobs. The letter further says that even if there is a violation in complying with the provisions of sections 11 and 12, the institution cannot lose its character and nature and at the most the assessee will be liable to pay tax on the income earned without compliance/in violation of provisions/conditions laid down under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The counsel brought to our attention page 2 of the letter which specifically states that the contributions received by the assessee were towards the corpus which is excluded by virtue of section 12 of the Act. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam & Charities [1982] 133 ITR 779 the counsel Submitted that at the most the application of the income resulted in the maintenance or improvement of the properly held under trust for charitable purposes and this will not make the assessee entitled to gel its income exempted under section 11, but that does not mean that the character of the trust itself will be lost.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.K. Charitable Trust on 9 April, 1991

16. Looking from another angle, in the light of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. J.K. Charitable Trust[1992] 196 ITR 31, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. In this case, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that "a charitable purpose may be served in more than one way. One is to directly contribute for the promotion of that cause; the other is to contribute money to another charitable organization which advances that cause. In the absence of allegations of device and/or mala fides, the amount contributed to other charitable institutions out of the income accumulated under sub-section (2) is outside the mischief of sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In other words, such contribution does not amount to application of the income for purposes other than charitable or religious ones."
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Thanthi Trust vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Others on 19 December, 1994

16.1 Coming to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Thanthi Trust v. CBDT [1995] 213 ITR 639 (Mad.), we are of the view that this decision also does not further the case of the assessee. In this case, the fact was that Sri S.B. Aditanar, who was carrying on the business of printing and publishing the newspaper Thanthi since its inception in 1943, by way of a supplementary deed executed on 9-7-1957 declared that the trust created by the document dated 1-3-1954 was irrevocable. Again by a supplementary deed executed on 28-6-1991, the founder of the trust directed that the surplus income of the said trust, after defraying all the expenses, should be devoted by the trustees for charitable purposes.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Thanthi Trust on 14 March, 1996

In the light of the above facts, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that "inasmuch as the business carried on by the petitioner was itself held under trust for public charitable purposes and the business was carried on only for purposes of carrying out the charitable objects as found by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of CIT v. Thanthi Trust [1982] 137 ITR 735, the provisions of subsection (4A) of section 11 could not have any application. The High Court further held that in the light of the above, the application of sub-section (4A) of section 11 to deny the exemption under section 11 was not correct. In the instant case of the assessee, we have already noted from the facts borne out of record that setting up the printing press in order to print the daily, Madhyamam for M/s Ideal Publication Trust was itself an object. Coming to the sub-clauses (c), (d) and (e) of clause 11 of the deed of trust dated 19-9-1985, on which the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance, viz., the Board shall have power to acquire, accept or receive all endowments, gifts, grants or donations, movable or immovable made to this trust etc., the power to sell and purchase the movable and immovable properties for the benefit of the trust etc. and the power to set up any industry or business for and as part of the aforesaid charitable purposes, we find that the establishment of the printing press was only a means to achieve the end of charitable purposes and though the above objects are meant for charitable purposes, as we have already held, the facts in the case of the assessee speaks otherwise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979

17. We have noted in section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that charitable object includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility, not involving the carrying on of an activity for profit. The last 10 words 'not involving the carrying' on of an activity for profit' are no more in the statute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 observed that "the law has been development by analogy upon analogy and it is to be found in the large mass of case-law that has been built up by the courts over the years. The result is that the concept of charity in English law is as vague and undefined as it is wide and elastic and every time there has to be a search for analogy from the preamble to the State of Elizabeth or from decided cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2322 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1