Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.29 seconds)
Modi Charitable Fund Society vs Income-Tax Officer on 28 December, 1982 cites

Dharmaposhanam Co. Kerala vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala on 24 July, 1978

16. Coming to the aims and objects of the assessee-society detailed in paragraph 15 above, it may be stated that the ITO in the assessment of the assessee-society for the year under consideration has at page 4 stated that object (c) thereof though falling within the category of medical relief was never implemented by the assessee-society. As already stated, the assessee-society was established in 1940. The year under consideration is the financial year 1977. Since the said object (c) was not implemented for over 37 years, it can be safely assumed that the assessee-society had no intention of implementing it. As already stated, the assessee-society never implemented this object. That being the position, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Dharmaposhanam Co.'s case (supra), which in turn is based on another decision of the Supreme Court in Dharmodayam Co.'s case (supra), we have to ignore this object (c) of the assessee-society and to proceed to consider the case as if it did not exist for the moment. We hold likewise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 41 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Victoria Technical Institute on 12 April, 1978

...The position as it existed under the Act of 1922 was that once the purpose of the trust was relief of the poor, education, medical relief or the advancement of any other object of general public utility, the trust was considered to be for a charitable purpose. As a result of the addition of the words 'not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit' at the end of the definition in Section 2(15) of the Act, even if the purpose of trust is 'advancement of any other object of general public utility', it would not be considered to be 'charitable purpose' unless it is shown that the above purpose does not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. The result thus of the change in the definition is that in order to bring a case within the fourth category of charitable purpose, it would be necessary to show that : (1) the purpose of the trust is advancement of any other object of general public utility and (2) the above purpose does not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. Both the above conditions must be fulfilled before the purpose of the trust can be held to be charitable purpose. ..." (p. 242) Our above view in the present case is also supported by the decision of the Madras High Court in Victoria Technical Institute's case (supra). We, therefore, hold that the assessee-trust has not been established for 'education'. Further for the reasons stated by the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision and by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as detailed in paragraphs 18 and 19 above, with which we agree and which we respectfully follow, we hold that the assessee-society trust has been established for 'advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit'.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1