Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 226 1976 SLD 226 (1976) 102 ITR 474
Karnataka High Court
IT REFERRED CASE No. 31 OF 1973, AUGUST 4, 1975
G.K. GOVINDA BHAT, C.J. AND M.K. SRINIVASA IYENGAR, J.
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy for the Applicant. G. Sarangan for the
Respondent

Addl. Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust

Law:

Section:

Section 11, read with section 2(15), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or religious trust - Exemption of income from property held - Assessment year 1969-70 - Whether where assessee-trust was created mainly for relief of poor, education and medical relief - Carrying on of a business with a view to fulfill those objects, would not deprive assessee of exemption under section 11 - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was a trust constituted by a deed, dated 17-3-1958. Up to the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee was granted exemption from income-tax. But, for the assessment year 1969-70, the ITO held that there was no genuine charitable trust in existence and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption contemplated in section 11. The AAC upheld the view of the ITO. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was a charitable trust as defined in section 2(15), that it was a genuine trust and that it was entitled to the exemption under section 11. The Tribunal found that the assessee was formed chiefly for the relief of the poor, education and medical relief and these were the dominant objects of the trust and that upto the year 1971, the assessee had applied a sum of Rs. 5,25,000 for charitable purposes. HELD In the instant case, clause 4 defined the objects of the trust. The trust was mainly for the purpose of relief of the poor, education and medical relief. The Tribunal had found it as a fact. The finding that up to 30-6-1971, a sum of Rs. 5,25,000 had been applied for charitable purposes had not been disputed by the department. That fact was not challenged in the instant reference. Therefore, the main object of the trust being the relief of the poor, education and medical relief, the carrying on of a business with a view to fulfil those objects did not deprive the assessee of the exemption under section 11. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11. Note : The case was decided in favour of assessee. CASE REFERRED TO CIT v. Sale Trustee Loka Shikshana Trust [1970] 77 ITR 61 (Mys.). JUDGMENT Srinivasa Iyengar, J.-The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492