SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., D.A. DESAI AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.
M/S. Dharmaposhanam Co., Kerala, Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 6-12 of 1975
Decided on 24-7-1978.
Advocate Appeared
Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate (Mr. N. Sudhakaran, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. V. S. Desai, Sr. Advocate (Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate with him), for Respondent.
Income-tax Act, 1961 – Section 11 - Claim exemption from tax of income from kuris and money - Funds for the purpose of company - Appellant is Company - It is an association constituted license issued in January by then Government of Cochin and registered with limited liability Indian Companies Act as applied to Cochin - Appellant was governed by Memorandum of Association which provided objects of company are raise funds by conducting kuris with company as foreman receiving donations and subscriptions by lending money on interest and by such other means company deems fit – Held, It had been urged on behalf of appellant that what should be taken into consideration is activity actually conducted by assesses and not what is open to provisions its Memorandum Association – Court do not agree - Whether trust is for charitable purposes falls to be determined by reference to all objects for which trust has been brought into existence - See Tenant Plays of Inland revenue Incorporated Council of law Reporting for England and Wales – Attorney General and Comers - Inland Revenue Special Comers - Income-tax Tax was pointed out by Court of Appeal in England that if settler reserves to himself power of appointment which he might appoint to non-charitable purposes trust cannot claim exemption even though power of appointment is in fact exercised in favor of charitable object It would be different case where one or more of objects mentioned in Memorandum of Association although included therein were never intended to be undertaken - If there is evidence pointing to that conclusion clearly court will ignore object and proceed to consider case as if it did not exist in Memorandum - In supra it was that basis on which this Court proceeded when it observed that assesses had never engaged itself in any industry or in any other activity of public interest - Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT
PATHAK, J.:— These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in references disposed of by it under S. 256 of the Act.
2. The appellant is the Dharmaposhnam Company, Irinjalakuda. It is an association constituted under a license issued in January, 1931 by the then Government of Cochin and registered with limited liability under S. 26 (1) of the Indian Companies Act 1913 as applied to Cochin. The appellant was governed by a Memorandum of Association, Cl. (3) of which provided :-
"3. The objects of the company are :
(a) To raise funds by conducting kuries with company as foreman, receiving donations and subscriptions, by lending money on interest and by such other means as the company deems fit.
(b) To do the needful for the promotion of charity, education, industries etc. and public good.
(c) For carrying on the business of the company and for the advancement of the purpose mentioned above in so far as is appropriate, to construct buildings or to purchase or take on lease or for hire movable or immovable properties.
(d) To encourage others to form other institution with the purpose of acting in accordance with the objects of the company.
(e) To do all such things as are conducive to the fulfillment of the above objects.
(f) To lend money on interest to one or more solvent persons individually or severally on the security of ornaments lended properties or other forms of security fixed by the Directors and to borrow money to meet the need of the company and to run other industries."
Article 58 of the Articles of Association read :-
"The profit of the company shall not be divided among the members. The profit left after meeting the expenses of the company will be utilised for promoting education, industry, social welfare and such other purposes of common good as are resolved by the general meeting."
3. During the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66, the appellant derived income from property, money lending and business in kuries or chit funds. The assessee claimed exemption from tax of the income from kuries and money lending under S. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with varying success before the income-tax authorities. It is sufficient to point out that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption. At the instance of the appellant, the Tribunal made a reference to the High Court for its opinion on the following question of law:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 was exempt under the provisions of S. 11 of the income-tax Act?"
4. On June 7, 1965, the appellant made certain alterations in its Memorandum of Association and its Articles of Association. Sub-clauses (b) and (f) of Cl. 3 of the memorandum now read:
"(b) To do the needful for the promotion of charity, education, medical relief and other matters of public good.
(f) To lend money in the security of ornaments, landed property or on such other securities, as determined by the Directors, or on the personal securities of one or more solvent person or persons and also to borrow funds for the purpose of the company."
5. The amended Art. 58 of the Articles of Association now provided: -
"The profit of the company shall not be divided among the members. The profit left after meeting the expenses of the company will be utilised for purposes of common good like charity, education and medical relief as are resolved by the general meeting."
6. The appellant pressed its claim for exemption under S. 11 of the Act before the income-tax authorities for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69 also, and the claim was allowed by the Tribunal in view of the aforesaid alterations. At the instance of the Income-tax Department, the Tribunal referred a question of law to the High Court for the three assessment years in terms identical with the question referred for the earlier assessment years. By its judgment dated Ju
explained and distinguished : C. I. T. v. Dharmodayam Co.
followed : Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishna Warriar
East India Industries Madras) (Pvt.) Lid. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.