Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
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
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth
Manufacturers Association reported in 121 (1980) I.T.R. 1 has held that the
object of the Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers 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.
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 Income Tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse [(2003) 259 I. T.R.
280] 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 Wealth-Tax vs Gangabai Charities on 17 February, 1998
6. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Gangabai
Charities [(1999) 236 I.T.R. 735] has held that the interpretation of a trust
deed for considering the liability of the trust for being regarded as a
charitable trust under the Income Tax Act is relevant for the purpose of
considering the claim of such a trust for exempting its properties from wealth
tax under the Wealth Tax Act.
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 2 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Andhra Chamber Of Commerce on 1 October, 1964
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
Andhra Chambers of Commerce [(1965) 55 I.T.R. 722] 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.
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 Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu V, vs. Workshop
Trust, [(1983) 142 I.T.R. 26]. In that case, the Court considered a trust
deed which was executed by a disciple of Shri Aurobindo, who after having
started a carpentary 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 the 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