Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Swastik Textile Trading Company Pvt. ... on 18 July, 1977
cites
Section 4 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
All India Spinners Assn. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 June, 1944
Lord Wrights observations in the Privy council decision in All India Spinners Association v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1944] 12 ITR 482, at page 486, were considered where it was pointed out that the words of the section were, "for the advancement of any other object of general public utility", whereas Lord Macnaghtens words were. "other purposes beneficial to the community". The difference in language, particularly the inclusion in the Indian Act of the word "public", was held to be of importance. It was, therefore, pointed out that the trend of judicial pronouncements was to construe the words "general public utility" in section 4(3) of the 1922 Act, not ejusdem generis but very widely.
Article 48A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Vallabhdas Karsondas Natha vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay. on 5 September, 1946
In the earlier decision in Vallabhdas Karsondas Natha v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1947] 15 ITR 32 (Bom), the relevant question had arisen in the context of the two clauses 4 and 8 of the trust deed in question. Clause 4 was regarding supply of fodder to animals and cattle and clause 8 was regarding such other purpose beneficial to the Hindu community and Indians in general not falling under the preceding heads. The learned chief Justice, Stone C.J., considering clause 4, observed at page 44, that such a disposition, for supply of fodder to animals and cattle would not be a charitable trust if it had to be construed in England by the English law because feeding of animals which was obnoxious to mankind could not be said to be considered, even apart from the charitable aspect of the matter, the feeding of dumb creatures was in Hindu religion regarded as religious.
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Turst vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mysore on 28 August, 1975
The entire legal position of the scheme underlying these sections has been examined in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1975] 101 ITR 234 (SC). At page 242, the wider question was not examined as to whether the limitation which is now introduced in the definition in section 2(15) by the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" qualifies only the last category or even the first three categories of charitable purpose, viz., relief of the poor, education and medical relief. It was, however, held that the change in the definition categorically laid down that, in order to bring the case within the fourth category of charitable purpose or advancement of any other object of general public utility, it was necessary to show that : (1) the purpose of the trust is the advancement of any other object of general public utility, and (2) the above purpose does not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. What constitutes "business" activity was explained at page 243 and it was held that for the limitation to be attracted such a profit must pervade the whole series of transactions effected by the person in the course of his activities. In the concurring judgment by his Lordship Beg J. (as he then was), first, the entire history of this law about charity was examined. It was pointed out, at page 249, that the fourth-fold classification of charitable purposes had a history in English law. The statute of Elizabeth I had a preamble containing an illustrative list of charitable objects which was never treated as exhaustive, and in English law a purpose was considered, in the eye of law, to be charitable only if it came within the letter or the spirit and intendment of the preamble of the statute of Elizabeth. Pemsels ratio [1891] AC 531 (HL) of Lord Macnaghten was pointed out where the four-fold classification of charitable purpose was adopted : (1) relief of property, (2) advancement of education, (3) advancement of religion, and (4) other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads. Thereafter, it was pointed out, at page 250, that the framers of our Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, adopted this four-fold classification with some modifications, and the term "medical relief" was apparently substituted for "advancement of religion".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Andhra Chamber Of Commerce on 1 October, 1964
In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC), it was held that the expression "object of general public utility" in section 4(3) would, prima facie, include "all objects which promote the welfare of the general public". Thereafter, it was pointed out that the amendment had introduced words of limitation because otherwise this fourth residuary category was too wide and Parliament wanted to prevent its abuse. At page 256 ([1975]) 101 ITR 234 (SC)), it was pointed out, this limitation test introduced by the amendment was as under :
1