Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)The Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991
Vanita Vishram Trust vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr on 6 May, 2010
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979
Considered in the aforesaid perspective,
there cannot be any doubt that the main object of the appellant trust
8
ITA No. 1232/Hyd/20 14
Shiva Shakthi Shiridi Sai Anugra ha Mah apteet am
is charitable in nature as it is for the benefit of general public. Even,
ld. DIT(E) also accepts this position, though he observes that some of
the object clauses are of religious nature. The Hon'ble supreme court
in case of Addl. CIT Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturerss
Association, [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) and a number of other decisions
held that if the primary purpose and predominant object of a trust are
to promote welfare of the general public, the purpose would be
charitable purpose. If the primary or predominant object of an
institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable
but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not
prevent the trust or institution from being a charitable trust.
Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Turst vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mysore on 28 August, 1975
46.Such trusts with composite objects would not be expelled out
of the purview of Section 13(1)(b) per se. The Section requires
it to be established that such charitable purpose is not for the
benefit of a particular religious community or caste. That is to
say, it needs to be examined whether such religious-charitable
activity carried on by the trust only benefits a certain particular
religious community or class or serves across the communities
and for society at large. (Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v.
CIT, (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)). The section of community
sought to be benefited must be either sufficiently defined or
11
ITA No. 1232/Hyd/20 14
Shiva Shakthi Shiridi Sai Anugra ha Mah apteet am
identifiable by a common quality of a public or impersonal
nature.
C.I.T,Ujjain vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat on 20 February, 2014
It was
submitted that every teaching that modulates physical, emotional and
spiritual behavior of the human being shall have some basis, but the
problem comes only when the privilege as in the case of traditional
caste system is extended to a particular group or community. It was
submitted that the term 'veda' itself means knowledge and not
religion, therefore setting up vedic pathasalas is not a religious
activity. It was submitted that producing devotional movies, TV
Serials relating to vedic scriptures etc., and propagation of tenets of
various religious teachings and the teachings of various gurus is not
for the benefit of a particular religion or community but for the moral
education of the people of all sections in the society. It was submitted
by appellant trust that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT, Ujjain
Vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat, Civil Appeal No. 2492 of 2014 arising out
of SLP© No. 9004 of 2010, held that a charitable and religious trust
which does not benefit any specific religious or community , can claim
4
ITA No. 1232/Hyd/20 14
Shiva Shakthi Shiridi Sai Anugra ha Mah apteet am
exemption u/s 11. Therefore, a trust having mixed objects of both
charitable and religion nature is eligible for benefit of section 11,
hence, cannot be denied registration u/s 12A.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Cochin vs Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust on 19 July, 2001
47.This Court in CIT v. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust, (2002) 9
SCC 685 the muslim residents of Kerala constituted a trust "for
the purpose of constructing and establishing at Palghat-a-Shadi
Mahal and other institutions for the educational, social and
economic advancement of the Muslims and for religious and
charitable objects recognised by Muslim law ..." and later
clarified that the proceeds would be utilized for the benefit for
public at large and upon this basis, the trust made a claim for
exemption from tax under Section 11. This Court held that the
resolution clarifying the object would not validly amend the
object of the trust-deed and since the object confined the
benefit to only muslim community, it would be covered by the
restriction under Section 13(1)(b) of the Act even though it
functioned for public benefit. Thus, therein the object
sufficiently defined or expressly stated beneficiary class and
restricted the activities of the trust to a specific community.
State Of Kerala vs M.P. Shanti Verma Jain on 8 May, 1998
48.Further, in State of Kerala v. M.P. Shanti Verma Jain, (1998)
5 SCC 63 this Court has held that propagation of religion and
restriction of benefits of activities of trust in its objects to the
said community would render the trust as ineligible for claiming
exemption under similar provisions of Kerala Agricultural
Income Tax Act, 1950. The Court observed as follows:
Section 13 in The Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Andhra Chamber Of Commerce on 1 October, 1964
(CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce, 55 ITR 722).