Search Results For: charity


The Tribune Trust vs. CIT (P&H High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/11: Impact of the amendment to the definition of "charitable purpose" in s. 2(15) by insertion of a proviso by the Finance Act, 2008 and whether it supersedes the verdicts in Loka Shikshana Trust 101 ITR 234 (SC), Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association 121 ITR 1 (SC) etc explained

If the legislature intended the latter part of the proviso to apply to the word “advancement” as well and not merely to the words “object of general public utility”, it would have worded the amendment entirely differently. The proviso would have expressly been made applicable to the advancement as well as to the object of general public utility. That the legislature did not do so is an indication that it accepted the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Section 2(15) as it originally stood and retained the effect of the section in that regard in the 2009 amendment. The ratio of the judgment in Surat Art Silk’s case (supra), in this regard, therefore, remains the same

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

DIT (E) vs. M/s Lala Lajpatrai Memorial Trust (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 19, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/ 11: If the predominant purpose is charitable, the earning of profit from an incidental activity like letting of property does not affect the charitable status. As the letting is a part of the educational activities, there is no obligation to maintain separate books u/s 11(4A). As per CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2008, the first proviso to s. 2(15) applies to the 'advancement of any other object of general public utility'

The revenue’s contention that the tribunal has overlooked the provisions of section 11(4A) is unfounded. We have noted above that the service charges received in respect of 6th and 7th floor were clearly on account of educational purpose. Letting out was incidental and not the principle activity of the assessee trust. Thus, in our opinion, section 11(4A) which require separate account to be maintained would not be attracted in view of our conclusion that the said amounts as received by the assessee for the assessment year have been received from educational activity which is the dominant activity of the assessee trust. In our opinion, if this be the case, separate books of accounts cannot be insisted upon as the said activity becomes part and parcel of the educational activities carried out by the assessee trust. In such a case, the benefit of exemption under section 11 (4A) cannot be denied. An interpretation as urged on behalf of the revenue would render nugatory the very spirit, rationale and the object of the exemption provisions making the same unworkable

Posted in All Judgements, High Court