Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Trustees Of Shri Cutchi Lohana ... on 12 March, 1973 cites

All India Spinners Assn. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 June, 1944

In view of the decisions of the Privy Council in all India Spinners Association v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it is well-settled that no formal deed not any other writing is necessary to constitute a charitable or religious trust, still less to constitute a legal obligation. A charitable trust may be created by any words sufficient to show the intention. It is undoubtedly true that there is no formal document or deed of trust, but absence is not or cannot be held under trust or legal obligation. Even if regard be had to the relevant provisions of the deed of conveyance executed as early as in the year 1837, it is quite clear that the property is conveyed to the purchases as the managers of the community. The matter, however, does not rest there. The indenture further provides that the purchasers are to have and to hold the property in trust for the use and purpose of the sect or caste of the said Kutchee Lohana. Even theses statements in the conveyance itself are by themselves sufficient to indicate that the property which was purchased in the year 1837 was held in trust or under a legal obligation. Ever since its purchase it was not even the case of the revenue that it was being used for the personal benefit of any members of the community. In that view of the matter, there can be no hesitation in taking the view that the property is held in trust or under other legal obligation.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 76 - Full Document

Chaturbhuj Vallabhdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 September, 1945

5. The question then arises, is the property held in trust or under legal obligation wholly or partially for religious or charitable purposes ? There is clear finding based upon immemorial uses of the income for a period extending on a century and a quarter that the properties of the trust are charged with an obligation in the nature of a trust inasmuch as the income had to be utilised by the trustees in the manner that was contemplated and enjoyed by the caste people, namely, for charity. This court in the case of Chaturbhuj Vallabhdas v. Commissioner of Income-tax has taken the view that the word "charity" without any further qualification has a recognised meaning in law. It amounts to a general charitable intention for objects well-recognised as charitable in law. It is further pointed out in that case that the word "charity", if used generally, necessarily connotes the use for the public. Therefore, when the word "charity" is used, there is nothing to include in it objects of private benefit only. The word "charity", if used generally or without qualifications or limitations, falls with in the definition of "charitable purpose" found in section 4 of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - H J Kania - Full Document
1