Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.38 seconds)Section 2 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Advocates Act, 1961
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
It was clearly inconsistent with the settled principles to hold in the aforesaid case that if the dominant or
primary object of a trust was 'charity' under the fourth head 'any other object of general public utility', it
was permissible for such an object of general public utility, to augment its income by engaging in trading or
commercial activities. In retrospect, it seems that it would have been better for Parliament to have deleted
the fourth head of charity "any other object of general public utility" from the ambit of the definition of
'charitable purpose' while enacting s. 2(15) rather than inserted the words "not involving the carrying on of
any other activity for profit", thereby creating all this legal conundrum". When the Government had not
accepted the recommendation of the Direct Tax Laws Committee in Chapter 2 (Interim Report, December,
1977) for the deletion of the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profits", by suitable
legislation, it was impermissible for this Court by a process of judicial construction to achieve the same
result. It is wrong to think that all springs of charity in India will dry up if true effect is given to s. 2(15) in
accordance with the minority judgment in the Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Association's case. People
who are truly charitable do not think of the tax benefits while making charities. One must realise that even
the poor who do not pay income tax can be charitable and their charities made at great personal
inconvenience are commendable indeed. One need not go in search of charitable persons amongst the
taxpayers only. Still the majority view has got to be followed now.