9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee-trust was carrying on a business within the meaning of section 13(1)(bb) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the income derived from leasing out the cinema theatre should be considered as business income or income from property/investment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Trust and Business Activity: The assessee is a public charitable trust created by a deed dated 30-7-1960. The trust was granted exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, until the assessment year 1977-78 when the exemption was denied under section 13(1)(bb) of the Act. The denial was based on the trust's acquisition of a cinema theatre, Prabhat Cinema, donated by the settlor, which was subsequently leased out. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the trust was carrying on cinema business, which was not in line with the primary purpose of the trust. 2. Assessee's Argument: The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the trust was not authorized to carry on any business according to its deed and had not engaged in running the theatre as a business. The theatre was leased out on a part-time basis to maximize income for the trust, and the trust retained control over the theatre to protect its property. The counsel cited several judicial decisions to support the claim that the theatre was held as an investment, not a commercial asset. 3. Department's Argument: The department argued that the theatre was a commercial asset donated by the settlor and continued to be so in the hands of the trust. The trust deed authorized the trustees to make investments in business, and the management and control of the theatre indicated a business activity. The department cited clauses of the lease agreement and the trust's actions, such as obtaining licenses and earning income from extra shows and advertisements, as evidence of business activity. 4. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 13(1)(bb) could not be applied to the case. The law relating to trusts prohibits altering the nature and objects of a trust except under court directions. The trust's assets did not involve carrying on a business, and the trustees could not accept any activity conflicting with the trust's primary purpose. The theatre was donated in a dilapidated condition and remodeled by the settlor before donation. The trustees did not run the theatre for exhibiting films but leased it out to generate income for the trust. 5. Nature of Income: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim that the theatre was held as an investment, not a business asset. The trust did not engage in exhibiting films, and the leasing out of the theatre did not constitute carrying on a business. The employment of staff and obtaining licenses were prudent steps to maintain the asset and did not indicate business activity. The Tribunal emphasized that the trust could not accept a donation that would subject it to section 13(1)(bb) and potentially erode the trust property. 6. Supporting Judicial Decisions: The Tribunal referred to several judicial decisions supporting the assessee's case, including: - Seth Banarsi Das Gupta v. CIT - Narain Swadeshi Wvg. Mills v. CIT - Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. CIT - New Savan Sugar & Gur Refining Co. Ltd. v. CIT - Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT - CIT v. D.L. Kanhere - East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT - Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT - CIT v. Ajmera Industries (P.) Ltd. These decisions highlighted the importance of the intention of the assessee, the nature of the asset, and the use to which it is put in determining whether a business is carried on. 7. Final Decision: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee-charitable trust was not carrying on a business and was not subject to the provisions of section 13(1)(bb). The appeals were allowed, and the trust's exemption under section 11 was restored.
|
