Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.84 seconds)Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Indian Chambers Of Commerce vs C.I.T., West Bengal Ii, Calcutta on 17 September, 1975
In these circumstances, with respect, we are inclined to base our decision on the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 796 and the other decisions mentioned above, relied upon on behalf of the revenue. We find that the object of the assessee is not a "charitable purpose" within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dharmodayan & Co., Kerala on 22 August, 1977
In view of this decision, which has been affirmed by the decision in CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. and the fact that the assessee in the present case is not running any educational institution like a school or college, we are of the opinion that the object of the assessee is not "education". The activity of the assessee in granting scholarships to students studying in the School of Arts and Crafts, Madras, and sending its superintendent or other persons connected with the institute to various places where handicrafts articles are made by artisans for advising them on improving production methods and finish, etc., would fall only under the head "Advancement of any other object of general public utility".
Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Turst vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mysore on 28 August, 1975
32. The Supreme Court noted in that case the emphasis on the business activity of the trust and further observed (p. 243):
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dharmaposhana Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 June, 1974
35. The next decision relied upon on behalf of the revenue is of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Dharmaposhana Company v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 351. There the learned judges have observed (p. 356):
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs India Pepper And Spice Trade ... on 18 June, 1976
38. The last decision relied upon on behalf of the revenue is of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. India Pepper and Spice Trade Association [1978] 111 ITR 206. There the learned judges have observed (p. 210):