9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the income of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70 can be said to be income derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Income Derived from Property Held Under Trust for Charitable Purposes: The primary issue in this case is whether the income of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (the assessee) for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 qualifies as income derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes, thereby making it eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a company limited by shares, was incorporated in 1947 with the objective of conducting a stock exchange and promoting and regulating business in stocks, shares, debentures, and other securities. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69, arguing that its income was derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes. However, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim. Upon appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) accepted the claim for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69, directing the exemption of the entire income of the assessee, while only partially allowing the exemption for the assessment year 1967-68. For the assessment year 1969-70, the AAC dismissed the assessee's appeal. The department appealed to the Tribunal for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69, arguing that the running of a stock exchange involved an activity for profit and could not be considered an object of general public utility. The Tribunal held that while the running of a stock exchange was an object of general public utility, the income of the assessee could not be said to have been derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes. The Tribunal noted the absence of any prohibition against the distribution of dividends to shareholders and the specific provision for creating funds for the benefit of shareholders, employees, and their relations, thus concluding that the income was not held under trust for charitable purposes. For the assessment year 1969-70, the AAC dismissed the assessee's appeal, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to differ from its earlier conclusion for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69. The Tribunal rejected the argument that a letter from the Ministry of Finance constituted a direction to the assessee not to distribute dividends or presents to members. The High Court, upon examining the case, agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion. The Court noted that Section 11 of the I.T. Act provides exemption for income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes. The Court assumed, for the sake of argument, that all the objects of the assessee-company were charitable. However, it found that the company was not under any legal obligation to utilize its income solely for charitable purposes. The company, being limited by shares, was at liberty to distribute its entire profits by way of dividends. The Court emphasized that the requirement for exemption under Section 11 is not the factual position but whether in law the company is under any obligation to devote its profits only to charitable purposes. The Court concluded that the assessee did not meet this requirement, as it was free to distribute its profits among its members. The Court also addressed the letter from the Ministry of Finance, finding it to be merely advisory and not legally binding. The Court observed that the letter suggested avoiding the distribution of dividends but did not impose any legal restriction. The Court further noted that the assessee continued the practice of distributing suit-cases to its shareholders even after receiving the letter, indicating that the letter had no compulsive or legal effect. In conclusion, the High Court held that the assessee was not eligible for the exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act, as it was not under any legal obligation to utilize its income solely for charitable purposes. The questions referred were answered in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner was entitled to one set of costs, with counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 300.
|
