9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the income of the assessee-trust is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the provisions of section 13(1)(bb) of the Act. 2. Whether the business income from decortication and ginning is disentitled from exemption under section 11 due to section 13(1)(bb). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 11 Despite Section 13(1)(bb): The primary issue is whether the income of the assessee-trust, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding the provisions of section 13(1)(bb). The objects of the society include providing relief to the poor, education, and medical relief, and establishing income-earning industries to achieve these objectives. The Revenue's contention is that the society derives income from business activities such as running a ginning factory and decorticating groundnut seeds, which attracts section 13(1)(bb). This section, introduced with effect from April 1, 1977, and deleted with effect from April 1, 1984, states that income derived from business by a charitable trust for the relief of the poor, education, or medical relief is not exempt unless the business is carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the trust. The Tribunal initially observed that the business carried on by the assessee is not in the course of the actual carrying out of the primary objects of the trust. However, it also noted that the business itself is held under trust for purposes of charity, thus entitling the assessee to exemption under section 11. 2. Business Income from Decortication and Ginning: The assessee's income from decortication and ginning for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 was Rs. 2,870 and Rs. 1,18,116, respectively. The first two authorities held that the business income from these activities was not exempt under section 13(1)(bb) as they were not carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of the primary purpose of the trust. The Tribunal, in its order dated June 24, 1983, and March 20, 1985, upheld the exemption, stating that the business itself is held under trust for charity. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in granting exemption contrary to section 13(1)(bb) since the business was not carried out in the course of the primary objects of the trust. The court considered various precedents, including CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC) and Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC). The court noted that under the old Act of 1922, income derived from a business carried on for the purpose of advancing an object of general public utility was excludible if the income was applied wholly for the purposes of the institution. However, under the present Act, the requirement is that the business must be carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the trust. The court found that there was no material to show that the business activities of ginning and decorticating were carried on as a means in the course of the actual carrying out of the primary purpose of the trust. The Tribunal's observation that the business itself is "property held under trust" as stated in section 11(4) did not suffice to grant exemption under section 11, as section 13(1)(bb) must also be considered. Conclusion: The court held that since the facts did not support that the business activities were carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of the primary purpose of the trust, the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 11. The question referred to the court was answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue.
|
