Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Director Of Income Tax vs Bharat Diamond Bourse on 16 December, 2002
9. More recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of IT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 FTR 280 (SC) held that a diamond bourse whose principal object was to facilitate the diamond trade so that maximum revenue could be earned by way of foreign exchange and also make the diamond trade more competitive in the. international market, was an object of general public utility and, therefore, charitable.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Andhra Chamber Of Commerce on 1 October, 1964
7. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce has held that the incidental benefit received by a member of the chamber would not debar the chamber of commerce from being treated as an institution which is charitable as the benefit received by the executor is only incidental.
Section 2 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979
8. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (1980) 121 WR 1 (SC) has held that the object of the Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association which was to promote commerce and trade in art silk yarn, raw-silk, cotton yarn, etc., was an object of general public utility. It was also held in that case that though the primary purpose of the trust is advancement of objects of general public utility, the institution would remain charitable even if a non-charitable object was mentioned in the deed, provided it was only incidental for achieving the primary purpose of the trust.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Workshop Trust on 1 April, 1982
11. Learned counsel for the Revenue sought to contend that this Court has already rejected a similar claim by a trust similar to the one now before us in the case of CIT v. Workshop Trust (1983) 142 1TR 26 (Mad). In that case, the Court considered a trust deed which was executed by a disciple of Shri Aurobindo, who after having started a carpentry workshop, created a trust called a Workshop Trust. The Court held that as the only purpose of the trust was to benefit the Aurobindo Ashram financially and the trust had no other purpose, it was not possible to regard the trust as a charitable trust. It was found that there were no educational objects in the trust that was created, and there was no other object of general public utility and further that the trust that was created did not fall within any other accepted heads of charity. The facts of this case are entirely different, The mere fact that the author of this trust like the author of the other trust considered in that case, are disciples of Sri Aurobindo, does not on that score, render all trust created by such disciples not charitable.
1