9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 10(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding exemption claimed by a registered trade union association. Detailed Analysis: The High Court of Calcutta addressed a reference made by the Tribunal concerning the denial of exemption claimed under section 10(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by a registered trade union association. The association's objects included various aspects such as regulating trade, arbitration, market development, quality standards, and employee relations. The contention was whether the association was primarily formed for regulating relations between workmen and employers or workmen and workmen, as required by section 10(24) for exemption. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the association, leading to this reference. The Court examined the objects of the association as outlined in its Rules and Regulations. While one object dealt with relations between workmen and employers, the majority focused on trade protection, market development, and technical advancements. The Court cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that each object of an association must be considered primary, not ancillary. It was argued that since the Indian Sugar Mills Association, a registered body under the Trade Unions Act, was considered primarily formed for various purposes, the same should apply to the present association. However, the Court disagreed, stating that merely having one object related to employee relations did not make it the primary purpose of the association. The lack of evidence regarding significant expenditure on employee relations further weakened the association's claim. Referring to past judgments, the Court distinguished cases where associations were found entitled to exemption under section 10(24) based on specific facts and objectives. The Court highlighted a case where an association was denied exemption due to its primary focus on member interests rather than employee relations. Considering the varied objectives of the present association, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to deny the exemption claim under section 10(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In conclusion, the Court answered the question in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue. The judgment was a joint decision by Judges Suhas Chandra Sen and Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, with no order as to costs.
|
