| COURT: | P&H High Court |
| CORAM: | Deepak Sibal J, S. J. Vazifdar CJ |
| SECTION(S): | 11, 2(15) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Charitable purpose, charity, exemption |
| COUNSEL: | Akshay Bhan |
| 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
Recent Comments