Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hyderabad Race Club Charitable Trust on 26 February, 2003
8. The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Hyderabad Race Club Charitable Trust . In this case, the Race Club was created as a public charitable trust in 1976. The trust obtained licence from the state government to conduct races. The licence itself constituted property held under trust. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 which was upheld by the Tribunal on the ground that the activity carried on by the assessee did not constitute a business and even if it were business, it was not such business as would be hit by Section 13(1)(bb). The CIT questioned the decision of the Tribunal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which held that the income derived by the trust by conducting races was income derived from property held under trust because the licence to conduct races was itself property and was held under trust. In the alternative, it was held that even if it is held to be income not derived from property held under trust, the contributions made by the race-goers could be treated as voluntary contributions under Section 12 which were capital receipts in the hands of the race club and in this view of the matter, the provisions of Section 13(1)(bb) cannot be applied. Thus, on both counts, the assessee's claim was upheld. This case also supports the assessee's case.
Cit vs Lagan Kala Upvan on 5 December, 2002
9. Moreover, the CIT took proceedings under Section 263 to deny the exemption to the assessee-trust for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 but dropped the proceedings. For the assessment years 1984-85 to 1999-2000 the Assessing Officer himself granted the exemption and these assessments have not been disturbed. For the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the Tribunal allowed the exemption. In such circumstances, following the rule of consistency also, apart from the reasons given by us earlier, the assessee's claim has to be upheld. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken the view in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 and Director of Income-tax v. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad 266 ITR 349 that the income tax authorities cannot take inconsistent views on the same set of facts. Respectfully following theses decisions and applying the rule of consistency, the assessee's claim requires to be upheld. This reasoning of ours is independent of the other reasons given by us in the earlier paragraphs to uphold the assessee's claim.
Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) vs Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad on 20 October, 2003
9. Moreover, the CIT took proceedings under Section 263 to deny the exemption to the assessee-trust for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 but dropped the proceedings. For the assessment years 1984-85 to 1999-2000 the Assessing Officer himself granted the exemption and these assessments have not been disturbed. For the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the Tribunal allowed the exemption. In such circumstances, following the rule of consistency also, apart from the reasons given by us earlier, the assessee's claim has to be upheld. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken the view in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Lagan Kala Upvan 259 ITR 489 and Director of Income-tax v. Lovely Bal Shiksha Parishad 266 ITR 349 that the income tax authorities cannot take inconsistent views on the same set of facts. Respectfully following theses decisions and applying the rule of consistency, the assessee's claim requires to be upheld. This reasoning of ours is independent of the other reasons given by us in the earlier paragraphs to uphold the assessee's claim.
Section 6 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80G in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... vs Thanthi Trust Etc. Etc on 31 January, 2001
In the light of this position, if we consider the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thanti Trust (and other appeals) (2001) 247 ITR 785, it is seen that this judgment was concerned with the question regarding the applicability of Section 13(1)(ob). It was held by the Supreme Court, reversing the judgment of the Madras High Court partly that if the business of the trust is not carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of the primary purpose of the trust as required by the aforesaid section, its income would not be exempt from tax. In that case, the trust called the Thanti Trust was established with the objects of giving relief to the poor and education. The Supreme Court therefore held that the income from the newspaper, which business was held under trust, did not directly accomplish, wholly or in part the objects of the trust and that the income from the business only fed the activity. The ruling in this case is not applicable to the present case where admittedly the object of the trust is the advancement of an object of general public utility. In the assessment year 1977-78, the CIT (Appeals) had recorded a finding to the effect that the objects of the assessee were education and advancement of any other object of general public utility. The Tribunal did proceed on the basis of this finding though in its order in paragraph 6 it observed that there was no material to find out whether education in the form of imparting training in tailoring, sewing and embroidery for qualifying for the two year certificate course was being pursued by the assessee and further observed that in the annual report the break up of the quantum of commercial and educational activity in this regard was not available. Even so an opinion was expressed, on the basis of the expenditure of Rs. 25,467/- incurred on condensed courses of education that the assessee was carrying on the activity of education. However, the assessee itself did not put its claim under the head education and had in fact filed a letter dated 19.1.1980 that the main object of the trust was not education or relief of the poor, but was an object of general public utility but this claim was rejected by the ITO. In the order of the Special Bench for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, there is reference to the argument of the assessee that the main object was one of general public utility and the word "education" appearing in Section 2 (15) connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge and skill and character of students by normal schooling and it has not been used in a wide and extensive sense, in the sense of acquiring any further knowledge. The argument of the Department did not proceed on the footing that the assessee was pursuing education as its main object. The argument was only that the predominant object of the assessee was that of profit making since the Manila Shilp Kala Kendra was run on commercial lines. This argument, as we have already noted, was rejected by the Special Bench. We are quite aware that the orders of the Tribunal (both the Division Bench and the Special Bench) have been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court and, therefore, can no longer be regarded as holding the field and the matter has to be looked into afresh. Even so, on the question of whether the assessee can be said to have pursued education as one of the charitable objects, we have the assessee's own admission in its letter referred to above that it did not pursue the object of imparting education but pursued an object of general public utility. One of its objects was to establish and maintain centres for adult education, shilp kala, sewing for widows or destitute ladies of all creeds and castes. Another object is to establish and maintain institutions for imparting general, vocational, industrial, moral and physical education to the children and girls and women of all creeds and castes. However, these two objects mentioned in the trust deed cannot be relied upon to contend that the assessee was pursuing the imparting of education as one of its objects.