9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 28(iii) of the Income Tax Act - Whether income derived by a trade association from specific services performed for its members is taxable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'? Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, delivered by Judge S. P. Goyal, addressed multiple Income-tax References involving similar questions. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 28(iii) of the Income Tax Act concerning the taxability of income derived by a trade association from specific services performed for its members. The case involved a union formed by truck owners in Hoshiarpur district to regulate the working of trucks and avoid competition amongst themselves. The union allocated loads to its members and charged a nominal fee for its services, including a special rebate for customers. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) contended that the surplus generated was taxable, while the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) upheld the taxability, stating that the union's activities constituted trade services. However, the Tribunal disagreed, asserting that the union's primary objective was not trading but regulating members' businesses to avoid competition. The judgment delved into precedents such as CIT v. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. and Indian Tea Planters' Association v. CIT to interpret the term 'specific services' in Section 28(iii). The court emphasized that income from a trade association is taxable if payments by members are for services rendered by the association, irrespective of direct trade activities. It distinguished a previous case involving an ice manufacturers' association, where contributions were not for specific services. The court concluded that the union's activities constituted trading, as it procured business for members and derived income from customer discounts. Therefore, the Tribunal's view that the union's income was not from trading activities was deemed unsustainable. In conclusion, the High Court answered the question against the assessee, affirming the taxability of the union's income under Section 28(iii). Judge B. S. Dhillon concurred with the judgment, and no costs were awarded.
|
