Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.45 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commr. Of Income-Tax, U.P., Lucknow vs Radhaswami Satsang Sabha on 28 September, 1953
With these observations we are in respectful agreement. We have then a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Commr, of Income Tax v. Radhaswami Satsang Sabha, , in which Chief Justice Malik, in his Judgment, after considering the relevant sub-sections and the Lahore decision that we have referred to above, observes at page 521 (of ITR) : (at p. 303 of AIR):
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, ... on 30 August, 1954
There are also certain observations of this High Court in a judgment, to which I was a party, in Commr, of Income Tax v Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, (F). The question that we had there to determine was whether the income from the sale of tickets for admission to the bath and from the bar and restaurant which was run in connection with a trust for the maintenance of the Breach Candy Swimming Bath was exempt from tax. The Tribunal had held that the income of the Trust was exempt under Section 4 (3) (ia) and the High Court had come to the conclusion that Section 4 (3) (i) applied and not Section 4 (3) (ia). In the judgment of Chagla, C. J,. at page 292 (of ITR): (at pp 254-255 of AIR), the following passage appears with regard to the true scope of the two sub-clauses :
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Thevara Patasala By Manager, ... on 11 January, 1926
Courts in India had taken the view that the word "property" in this sub-section did not include a business carried on for and on behalf of a trust (see Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Thevara Patasala, ILR 49 Mad 833: (AIR 1926 Mad 949) (FB) (A), and In the matter Of Lachhman Das, Narain Das . However, in In re, Trustees of the "Tribune" , their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the business of carrying on a newspaper fell within the scope of Section 4 (3) (i) of the Income-tax Act. Their Lordships did not hold this explicitly because the only question that their Lordships were called upon to determine, and did determine, was whether the trust under which the "Tribune" newspaper was run was of general public utility; but Sir George Rankin, who delivered the judgment of their Lordships, specifically held that the income from that trust fell within Section 4 (3) (1), and implied in it is the finding that the income from the trust was derived from property held under trust within the meaning of Section 4 (3) (i), that property being the business of carrying on the newspaper "Tribune". It is In this state of the law that by an amending Act of 1939 Clause (a) was inserted in the Indian Income-tax Act and that clause is in the following terms :
1