Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.31 seconds)Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979
5. Standing counsel for the Department, Mr. Rajgarhia contended that, after the insertion of this provision in Section 13, there was an embargo placed on the carrying on of business and, therefore, the trust can no longer claim exemption from taxability in respect of income derived from carrying on of business unless the business which the trust was carrying on was being carried out in the course of the actual carrying out of one of the primary objects of the trust. But learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. N. K. Poddar, referred to judicial pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in their several judgments particularly in CIT v. P. Krishna Warrior [1964] 53 ITR 176, CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 and Addl CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1. In these decisions of the Supreme Court, their Lordships distinguished the case of business held under the trust and those which the trust was carrying on or acquired on its own volition. According to their Lordships, the embargo was placed only on the trusts claiming to be public charitable trusts which were found to be carrying on any business or acquiring any business on their own. Such trusts could not claim exemption from taxability in respect of the income derived from such business as they themselves were engaged in to carry on those businesses or acquired such businesses. But where the business was treated as a property, and had been settled under trust by the settlor, the income derived from such business was not affected by the aforesaid provision contained in Section 13(1)(bb). Therefore, the claim of the assessee-trust for exemption in respect of income derived from running of the two cinemas which were settled under trust for carrying out the various objects of the trust by the settlor in 1945 could not be denied. The trust has not acquired the business or initiated the carrying on of the business. The trust came into effect only because two cinema houses treated as property were settled under the trust by the author of the trust.
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P. Krishna Warrier on 17 November, 1970
5. Standing counsel for the Department, Mr. Rajgarhia contended that, after the insertion of this provision in Section 13, there was an embargo placed on the carrying on of business and, therefore, the trust can no longer claim exemption from taxability in respect of income derived from carrying on of business unless the business which the trust was carrying on was being carried out in the course of the actual carrying out of one of the primary objects of the trust. But learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. N. K. Poddar, referred to judicial pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in their several judgments particularly in CIT v. P. Krishna Warrior [1964] 53 ITR 176, CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 and Addl CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1. In these decisions of the Supreme Court, their Lordships distinguished the case of business held under the trust and those which the trust was carrying on or acquired on its own volition. According to their Lordships, the embargo was placed only on the trusts claiming to be public charitable trusts which were found to be carrying on any business or acquiring any business on their own. Such trusts could not claim exemption from taxability in respect of the income derived from such business as they themselves were engaged in to carry on those businesses or acquired such businesses. But where the business was treated as a property, and had been settled under trust by the settlor, the income derived from such business was not affected by the aforesaid provision contained in Section 13(1)(bb). Therefore, the claim of the assessee-trust for exemption in respect of income derived from running of the two cinemas which were settled under trust for carrying out the various objects of the trust by the settlor in 1945 could not be denied. The trust has not acquired the business or initiated the carrying on of the business. The trust came into effect only because two cinema houses treated as property were settled under the trust by the author of the trust.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dharmodayan & Co., Kerala on 22 August, 1977
5. Standing counsel for the Department, Mr. Rajgarhia contended that, after the insertion of this provision in Section 13, there was an embargo placed on the carrying on of business and, therefore, the trust can no longer claim exemption from taxability in respect of income derived from carrying on of business unless the business which the trust was carrying on was being carried out in the course of the actual carrying out of one of the primary objects of the trust. But learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. N. K. Poddar, referred to judicial pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in their several judgments particularly in CIT v. P. Krishna Warrior [1964] 53 ITR 176, CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 and Addl CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1. In these decisions of the Supreme Court, their Lordships distinguished the case of business held under the trust and those which the trust was carrying on or acquired on its own volition. According to their Lordships, the embargo was placed only on the trusts claiming to be public charitable trusts which were found to be carrying on any business or acquiring any business on their own. Such trusts could not claim exemption from taxability in respect of the income derived from such business as they themselves were engaged in to carry on those businesses or acquired such businesses. But where the business was treated as a property, and had been settled under trust by the settlor, the income derived from such business was not affected by the aforesaid provision contained in Section 13(1)(bb). Therefore, the claim of the assessee-trust for exemption in respect of income derived from running of the two cinemas which were settled under trust for carrying out the various objects of the trust by the settlor in 1945 could not be denied. The trust has not acquired the business or initiated the carrying on of the business. The trust came into effect only because two cinema houses treated as property were settled under the trust by the author of the trust.