Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.40 seconds)Section 12 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dr. K. George Thomas vs The C.I.T. Kerala, Ernakulam on 23 September, 1985
20. Coming to the alternative plea that the voluntary contributions should be treated as gifts or capital receipts and are not taxable, the same cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. K. George Thomas case (supra). This was the case of an assessce who got educated in the USA and came to India. He started running a magazine 'Viswa Decpam' and for achieving this object collected money through the Indian Gospel Mission in the USA. Subsequently the assessee started publishing a newspaper called 'Kerala Dwani'. The assessee received/ collected donations from abroad and returned a loss income under the head 'business'. When the assessee was asked to explain the credits which were noticed on scrutiny, the assessee said that they were donations received from USA through an organisation known as Indian Christian Crusade, USA. The names of the persons who had donated were not available. It was contended that the receipts were purely personal gifts for the personal qualities of the assessee and that the payments were voluntary. When the matter was carried before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the receipts were casual and non-recurring in nature and did not arise in the course of exercise of any vocation. The High Court found that the receipts had arisen from the exercise of an occupation by the assessee and should have been included in the total income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the assessee was carrying on a vocation of practising against atheism and the donations received by him from USA for the furtherance of the objects of his vocation were not casual and nonrecurring receipts. In the instant case of the assessee, the assessee has produced certificates from the donors who had donated more than Rs. 6,000 to establish that they are donations towards the corpus. Since we have held that the asscssee's business is not incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust, the benefit of section 11(1)(d) which reads as under--
Section 80G in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979
17. We have noted in section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that charitable object includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility, not involving the carrying on of an activity for profit. The last 10 words 'not involving the carrying' on of an activity for profit' are no more in the statute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 observed that "the law has been development by analogy upon analogy and it is to be found in the large mass of case-law that has been built up by the courts over the years. The result is that the concept of charity in English law is as vague and undefined as it is wide and elastic and every time there has to be a search for analogy from the preamble to the State of Elizabeth or from decided cases.