Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.30 seconds)Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979
commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. Surat Art
Silk cloth Manufacturers Association [1980]121ITR1(SC) ).
Section 10 in The Bureau Of Indian Standards Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association on 7 April, 1981
In CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association
[1983] 140 ITR 1 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the expression "any
other object of general public utility" prima facie include all objects which
promote the welfare of the general public. It cannot be said that a purpose
would cease to be charitable even if public welfare is intended to be served.
If the primary purpose and the predominant object are to promote the
welfare of the general public the purpose would be charitable purpose.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Abdul Bakhi And Bros on 8 April, 1964
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakhi and Bros. (1964) 15
STC 664, the Supreme Court dealt with the expression "business" and
stated that it is an expression of indefinite import. In the taxing statutes it is
used in the sense of an occupation or profession which occupies time,
attention or labour of a person and normally associated with the object of
making profit. It was held as under:
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Punjab vs The Lahore Electric Supply Co on 25 November, 1965
12. CIT v. Lahore Electric Supply Company Limited (1966) 60 ITR 1
(SC) held that "business", under the Act contemplates activities capable of
producing profit which can be brought to tax.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gujarat Maritime Board on 5 December, 2007
In this context, the Supreme Court held, in Commr. of Income Tax v.
Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561(SC) speaking about what
constitutes "any other object of general public utility" that:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Andhra Chamber Of Commerce on 1 October, 1964
"13... The said expression would prima facie include all
objects which promote the welfare of the general public. It
cannot be said that a purpose would cease to be charitable even
if public welfare is intended to be served. If the primary
purpose and the predominant object are to promote the welfare
of the general public the purpose would be charitable purpose.
When an object is to promote or protect the interest of a
particular trade or industry that object becomes an object of
public utility, but not so, if it seeks to promote the interest of
those who conduct the said trade or industry (Commissioner of
Income-Tax, Madras v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce
[1965]55ITR722(SC)). If the primary or predominant object of
an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be
charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant
purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid
charity Addl.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Andhra ... vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... on 7 March, 1986
14. The present case in our view is equarely covered by the
judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-
tax, A.P. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
[1986]159ITR1(SC) in which it has been held that since the
Corporation was established for the purpose of providing
efficient transport system having no profit motive, though it
earns income in the process, it is not liable to income-tax."
Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 September, 1982
In a similar vein, the Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar
Pradesh v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 584 held that the object of the Bar Council,
to safeguard the interests of its advocates, to assist disabled advocates, to
see that advocates who misbehave are taken to task, to promote law reform
etc. shows that the body is constituted under Section 6 of the Advocates
Act, 1961 to benefit the public at large by having on its rolls, advocates
who are not only competent in law but who are respectable and proper
persons to belong to the noble profession of lawyers; the said activities have
been held for the advancement of general public utility within the meaning
of Section 2(15) of the Act.