Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 30 November, 1960
11. By virtue of the impugned consolidated order 14-3-2007, the learned CIT(A) cancelled the order passed by the A.O. It was observed, inter alia, that "Sakthi Charities" (supra) was not applicable; that in that case, the amendment deleting the clauses relating to the declaration of dividend of profits, was made by the Court, whereas in the case of the assessee trust, this was required to be done by the Registrar of Companies, since the assessee was registered with the said authority; that the objects of the assessee trust was laid down in its Memorandum of Association, whereas its rules were contained in its Articles of Association; that the assessee had not amended its Memorandum of Association, but had amended its Articles of Association; that thus, the assessee had not amended its objects, but its rules fulfilled the objects; that "Kamla Town Trust" (supra) was also not applicable; that in that case, the trust deed was amended by the Court in 1955 and it was not amended retrospectively; that therefore, the trust had itself agreed that 1955 rectification of the Trust deed substituted a new trust for the old one and that therefore, the trust would not trace that such rectification had any retrospective effect; that accordingly, it had been held in "Kamla Town Trust" (supra); that the said rectification was not retrospective; that on the other hand, the facts of the case was altogether different; that in this case, the share holders of the Institution had deleted, vide Extra Ordinary Meeting held on 17-4-2006, the enabling clauses regarding the declaration of dividend from the Articles of Association retrospectively; that this deletion/amendment had been made since there had been an inherent inadvertent technical shortcoming in the Articles of Association; that in "Kamla Town Trust" (supra), it had been held that on such rectified trust deed is pressed into service before the Income tax Authorities, the Income tax Officer will have to interpret such rectified instruction for finding out its legal effect, taking the instruction as it is in its actual amended form; that in the present case, the notice under Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act for all the assessment years under consideration, were issued after the Articles of Association to the assessee were amended; that the A.O. had erred in not considering the instruction as it existed in its actual amended form, when it was pressed into service by the assessee that "Delhi Slock Exchange Association Ltd." (supra) was not applicable to the case of the assessee; and that in that case, the clause prohibiting the declaration of dividend had been inserted w.e.f. 1973 and not retrospectively whereas in the case of the assessee, such amendment was retrospective.
Section 31 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kanpur vs Kamla Town Trust on 16 November, 1995
11. By virtue of the impugned consolidated order 14-3-2007, the learned CIT(A) cancelled the order passed by the A.O. It was observed, inter alia, that "Sakthi Charities" (supra) was not applicable; that in that case, the amendment deleting the clauses relating to the declaration of dividend of profits, was made by the Court, whereas in the case of the assessee trust, this was required to be done by the Registrar of Companies, since the assessee was registered with the said authority; that the objects of the assessee trust was laid down in its Memorandum of Association, whereas its rules were contained in its Articles of Association; that the assessee had not amended its Memorandum of Association, but had amended its Articles of Association; that thus, the assessee had not amended its objects, but its rules fulfilled the objects; that "Kamla Town Trust" (supra) was also not applicable; that in that case, the trust deed was amended by the Court in 1955 and it was not amended retrospectively; that therefore, the trust had itself agreed that 1955 rectification of the Trust deed substituted a new trust for the old one and that therefore, the trust would not trace that such rectification had any retrospective effect; that accordingly, it had been held in "Kamla Town Trust" (supra); that the said rectification was not retrospective; that on the other hand, the facts of the case was altogether different; that in this case, the share holders of the Institution had deleted, vide Extra Ordinary Meeting held on 17-4-2006, the enabling clauses regarding the declaration of dividend from the Articles of Association retrospectively; that this deletion/amendment had been made since there had been an inherent inadvertent technical shortcoming in the Articles of Association; that in "Kamla Town Trust" (supra), it had been held that on such rectified trust deed is pressed into service before the Income tax Authorities, the Income tax Officer will have to interpret such rectified instruction for finding out its legal effect, taking the instruction as it is in its actual amended form; that in the present case, the notice under Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act for all the assessment years under consideration, were issued after the Articles of Association to the assessee were amended; that the A.O. had erred in not considering the instruction as it existed in its actual amended form, when it was pressed into service by the assessee that "Delhi Slock Exchange Association Ltd." (supra) was not applicable to the case of the assessee; and that in that case, the clause prohibiting the declaration of dividend had been inserted w.e.f. 1973 and not retrospectively whereas in the case of the assessee, such amendment was retrospective.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indian Sugar Mills Association on 17 March, 1975
7. The assessee, vide letter dated 11 -7-2006, replied that the contention of the A.O. had already been examined by the CIT, Amritsar in the light of the judgment of the I TAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (35 ITD (Hyd.) 381; that the Articles of Association or Bye laws of the institution did not govern the objects of the Institute as set out in the Memorandum of Association; that the articles 106 to 114 were only enabling clauses which did not affect the objects of the Institute; that the Institute was wholly owned by the Government and on this account also, provisions and non provisions of the dividend clause did not have any effect; that no dividend had been declared since the claim of exemption i.e. from assessment year 1980-81 onwards; that the copy of the order of IT AT as well as a copy of the written submissions made before the CIT, Amritsar, were being enclosed; that the Revenue was not in appeal before the High Court against the order of the ITAT in the case of A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.; that the ITAT in this case had held that merely because the Articles of Association of the Company made a provision for declaration of dividend, such provision did not detract from the predominant objective of the State Government in forming the Corporation, financed fully subscribed by the Slate, for the rapid and orderly Industrial Development of the State; that the assessee was a charitable institution within the meaning of Section 2(15) and, therefore, was entitled to exemption of its income under Section 11; that the case law pointed out by the A.O. i.e., Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1977) 225 ITR 235 (SC) could not be said to be applicable to the Assessee Trust because the shareholders of the Company (H.E. The Governor, Principal Secretary to Government Industries and Commerce Department, Commission-Secretary to Government Finance Department), in an Extraordinary General Meeting, had already deleted all the clauses relating to declaration of dividend retrospectively from its Articles of Association by recording the reason that it was an inherent inadvertent technical shortcoming and accordingly, amendments were being made in the Articles of Association; that a copy of the Minutes alongwith the amended copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association were being enclosed; that moreover, there could be said to be private gain when private persons were involved as shareholders of the company, whereas when the Govt. was involved as shareholder, no element of private gain could be said to be present; that the judgment in the case of 'CIT v. Indian Sugar Mills Association', 97-ITR-486 was also not applicable because in the case of the Assessee Trust, it was the Government of Jammu & Kashmir which was holding the entire share capital; and that the ITAT Hydrabad Bench, in the case of 'A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.' had not followed this judgment.
Section 143 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sakthi Charities vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 3 April, 1984
11. By virtue of the impugned consolidated order 14-3-2007, the learned CIT(A) cancelled the order passed by the A.O. It was observed, inter alia, that "Sakthi Charities" (supra) was not applicable; that in that case, the amendment deleting the clauses relating to the declaration of dividend of profits, was made by the Court, whereas in the case of the assessee trust, this was required to be done by the Registrar of Companies, since the assessee was registered with the said authority; that the objects of the assessee trust was laid down in its Memorandum of Association, whereas its rules were contained in its Articles of Association; that the assessee had not amended its Memorandum of Association, but had amended its Articles of Association; that thus, the assessee had not amended its objects, but its rules fulfilled the objects; that "Kamla Town Trust" (supra) was also not applicable; that in that case, the trust deed was amended by the Court in 1955 and it was not amended retrospectively; that therefore, the trust had itself agreed that 1955 rectification of the Trust deed substituted a new trust for the old one and that therefore, the trust would not trace that such rectification had any retrospective effect; that accordingly, it had been held in "Kamla Town Trust" (supra); that the said rectification was not retrospective; that on the other hand, the facts of the case was altogether different; that in this case, the share holders of the Institution had deleted, vide Extra Ordinary Meeting held on 17-4-2006, the enabling clauses regarding the declaration of dividend from the Articles of Association retrospectively; that this deletion/amendment had been made since there had been an inherent inadvertent technical shortcoming in the Articles of Association; that in "Kamla Town Trust" (supra), it had been held that on such rectified trust deed is pressed into service before the Income tax Authorities, the Income tax Officer will have to interpret such rectified instruction for finding out its legal effect, taking the instruction as it is in its actual amended form; that in the present case, the notice under Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act for all the assessment years under consideration, were issued after the Articles of Association to the assessee were amended; that the A.O. had erred in not considering the instruction as it existed in its actual amended form, when it was pressed into service by the assessee that "Delhi Slock Exchange Association Ltd." (supra) was not applicable to the case of the assessee; and that in that case, the clause prohibiting the declaration of dividend had been inserted w.e.f. 1973 and not retrospectively whereas in the case of the assessee, such amendment was retrospective.