9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Non-taxability of donations received as corpus of the trust under Section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Treatment of net consideration received on the sale of shares for redemption of encumbrance under Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act. Issue 1: Non-taxability of donations received as corpus of the trust under Section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act The primary issue was whether the donations received by the assessee-trust, specifically designated for the corpus or capital fund, could be treated as taxable income under Section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act. The court referred to the precedent set in CIT v. Bal Utkarsh Society [1979] 119 ITR 137, which interpreted Section 12(2) as it stood before its amendment by the Finance Act, 1972. The court held that where donations are made to the corpus of the donee-trust, they do not constitute income of the trust. This interpretation was supported by the Allahabad High Court in Sri Dwarkadheesh Charitable Trust v. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 557, which stated that voluntary contributions directed to form part of the corpus do not fall within the purview of Section 12(2). Consequently, the court answered the first question in the affirmative, favoring the assessee. Issue 2: Treatment of net consideration received on the sale of shares for redemption of encumbrance under Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act The second issue was whether the net consideration received from the sale of 200 ordinary shares of Calico Mills, used to redeem the charge on 60 shares of Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd., could be treated as an investment in acquiring another capital asset under Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The court examined the nature of the transaction between the assessee-trust and the creditor, Sheth Karamchand Premchand, identifying it as a pledge. Under a pledge, the general property remains with the pawner, and the pawnee has a special property or interest in the goods pledged, which includes the right to retain and sell the goods if the debt is not discharged. The court concluded that by paying off the debt of Rs. 80,500, the assessee-trust merely discharged its obligation and did not acquire a new capital asset. The ownership of the shares remained with the pawner (the donor) throughout the transaction. Therefore, the payment to the creditor did not amount to acquiring a capital asset, and the assessee-trust was not entitled to exemption under Section 11(1A). The court also addressed the argument that the extinguishment of the creditor's rights upon repayment of the debt constituted a transfer of capital asset. The court rejected this argument, stating that the creditor's rights were limited to retention and sale of the pledged goods, not ownership of the shares. Thus, there was no acquisition of a new capital asset by the assessee-trust. Conclusion The court answered the second question in the negative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on the computation of capital gains, with no order as to costs.
|
