JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:— These four appeals raise but one question, turning on the meaning of charitable purpose , as defined in Section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act No. XLIII of 1961) (for short, the Act). They may be disposed of by one common judgment, although the two High Courts (Calcutta and Kerala) from where the appeals have come have taken contrary views on the single point in issue.

2. What are the bounds set for earning exemption by a combined application of Sec. 11 (1) read with Section 2 (15) of the Act ? What is the parameter of the legal concept of charitable purpose? Are the triune activities, which have yielded income and have been assessed to tax, eligible for exemption as falling within the scope of Section 2 (15) as it now stands? These points of law, in the conspectus of facts presented in the case, have been argued in the light of conflicting decisions of the High Court and illumined in part by a very recent pronouncement of this Court in Loka Shikshana Trust v. C.I.T. Mysore Civil Appeals Nos. 2130 and 2131 of 1970, decided on 28-8-1975.

3. The assessee are the Indian Chamber of Commerce and the Cochin Chambers of Commerce. Their memoranda and articles of association are substantially similar and so the facts in the first case alone need be stated and the question of law discussed with reference to that case only. Hardly any distinction on facts or law which desiderates a separate consideration exists.

4. The Indian Chamber of Commerce is a company registered under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Its memorandum and articles of association spell out the broad objects and there is no doubt that they fall within the sweep of the expression the advancement of any....object of general public utility as set down in Section 2(15) of the Act. Briefly put, they are primarily promotional and protective of Indian trade interests and other allied service operations. A general concluding clause authorizes it to do all other things as may be conductive to the development of trade, commerce and industries or incidental to attainment of above objects or any of them . It is clear from Cls. 4 and 8 of the Memorandum of Association that the Members of the Chamber do not and cannot stand to gain personally since no portion of income and property of the association shall be paid......directly or indirectly, by way of 350 dividend or bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit to the persons who at any time are....members of the Association.... . Even on the dissolution of the Association the Members cannot claim any share in the assets. These highlight the fundamental fact that the Chamber, by and large, strives to advance the general trade interests of India and Indian without seeking to make profits for its Members. In the light of this Court s decision in C.I.T. v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce, (1965) 55 ITR 722 one may readily state that the Chambers advance objects of general public utility and, prima facie move into the exclusionary area of charitable purpose. However, the bone of contention in this case is as to whether the three sources of income, viz., (a) arbitration fees levied by the Chamber; (b) fees collected for the certificates of origin; and (c) share of profit in M/s. Calcutta Licensed Measurers for issue of certificates of weighment and measurement, fall within the exclusion. It may be mentioned that all these three services were extended to Members and non-Members or, rather, to the trade generally. Had the law bearing on charitable purpose been what it was prior to 1961, the Chamber would have won, hands down may be. But then there is a significant change in the definition of charitable purpose by the addition of nine new words which cut back on the amplitude of the expression in the prior Act. The straight question to be answered here is whether, in plain English, the three activities which have yielded profits to the Chamber involve the carrying on of any activity for