Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1986 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1986 (7) TMI 69 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved: Interpretation of u/s 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding exclusion of rental income from total income for accumulation purposes.

Summary:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed a reference u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the exclusion of rental income from the total income of a trust for accumulation purposes. The Tribunal had to decide if the rental income of Rs. 17,414 should be excluded from the total income of Rs. 73,484.06 for calculating the permissible accumulation limit u/s 11(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal observed that the income to be considered for accumulation purposes should not include any receipt against which specific expenditure had been incurred. It was emphasized that income directly utilized for earning itself should be reduced. The Tribunal agreed that certain expenses incurred by the assessee would qualify for allowance under u/s 11(2), resulting in a revised allowable deduction.

Upon appeal, the High Court reframed the question to focus on whether the sum of Rs. 17,414 should be excluded from the trust's income of Rs. 73,484.06 for determining the permissible accumulation limit u/s 11(1) of the Act. The Court highlighted that as per the provisions of u/s 11(1)(a), the income to be considered for accumulation purposes is the income derived from property held for charitable or religious purposes.

The Court concluded that for calculating the permissible accumulation limit u/s 11(1) of the Act, the rental income of Rs. 17,414 should not be deducted from the total income of the trust. Therefore, the answer to the reframed question was in the negative and against the Revenue. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in this reference.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates