Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (0.58 seconds)Section 2 in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 20 in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Shri Ramtanu Co-Operative Housing ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 August, 1970
In Shri Ramtanu Coop. Housing Society [Shri Ramtanu Coop.
Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 323] no
doubt, this Court did not have to decide whether Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation was entitled to tax exemption.
However, it examined the provisions of the Act, and the ratio, that
such industrial development corporations are not engaged in trading,
is binding. Like in that case, here too, the State Acts concerned (the
Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 and the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966) tasked the boards with
planning and development of industrial areas. Their personnel are
appointed under the enactments and are deemed to be public
servants. The State Government is empowered to acquire land, in
exercise of eminent domain power, for their purposes; their audits
are by the Accountant General of the State concerned, or auditors
appointed by the State. They are authorised by law, to levy rates and
charges, for the services they provide, on predetermined basis. In the
light of these provisions, clearly, these boards and authorities
perform objects of general public utility; and they are not driven by
profit motive.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 6 in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs M/S. Raipur Manufacturing Company Ltd on 30 September, 1966
"Section 2(15) defines the term 'charitable purpose'.
Therefore, while construing the term 'business' for the said
section, the object and purpose of the section has to be kept in
mind. We do not think that a very broad and extended
definition of the term 'business' is intended for the purpose of
interpreting and applying the first proviso to section 2(15) of
the Act to include any transaction for a fee or money. An
activity would be considered 'business' if it is undertaken
with a profit motive, but in some cases this may not be
determinative. Normally, the profit motive test should be
satisfied but in a given case activity may be regarded as
business even when profit motive cannot be
established/proved. In such cases, there should be evidence
and material to show that the activity has continued on sound
and recognized business principles, and pursued with
reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other
circumstances which justify and show that the activity
undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as
prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co.
Ltd. (1967) 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai Publication Fund
(2002) 258 ITR 70 (SC) ; (2002) 126 STC 288 (SC) can be
applied.