1986 (3) TMI 1 - SC - Income Tax

State transport corporation - entire capital has been provided by the state government - Profits are to be utilised for providing amenities to passangers, labour welfare, approved expansion etc. - assessee is held a charitable institution

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation's income for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 was exempt from income-tax under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Whether the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation's income for the assessment year 1962-63 was exempt from income-tax under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-corporation") claimed exemption from income-tax under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. This section exempts income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes. The definition of "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility.

The respondent-corporation argued that its income should be exempt as it was held for charitable purposes. However, the Income-tax Officer rejected this claim, and the matter was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal. The Department then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which reversed the decision and referred the matter to the High Court. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent-corporation, leading to the present appeals.

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the RTC Act, particularly sections 3, 18, 22, 23, 28, and 30, to determine whether the respondent-corporation's activities were carried on for profit. The Court noted that the primary object of the respondent-corporation was to provide an efficient, adequate, economical, and properly coordinated system of road transport services, which is an object of general public utility.

The Court emphasized that section 22, which mandates the corporation to act on business principles, does not imply that the activities are carried on for profit. Instead, it ensures efficient and economical management. The Court reiterated the principle established in previous judgments, such as Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, that the test is whether the predominant object of the activity is to carry out a charitable purpose or to earn profit. If the predominant object is charitable, the purpose does not lose its character merely because some profit arises from the activity.

The Court found that the respondent-corporation's activities were not carried on with the object of making profit, as evidenced by section 30, which directs that any remaining income after specific utilizations is made over to the State Government for road development, an object of general public utility.

Issue 2: Exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
For the assessment year 1962-63, the respondent-corporation claimed exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This section exempts income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent that such income is applied to such purposes in India.

The definition of "charitable purpose" in section 2(15) of the 1961 Act includes the advancement of any other object of general public utility, not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the test is whether the predominant object of the activity is to carry out a charitable purpose or to earn profit.

The Court examined the provisions of the RTC Act and found that the respondent-corporation's activities were aligned with the advancement of an object of general public utility. The Court noted that the respondent-corporation's income, after making provisions for specific purposes, was either utilized for financing expansion programs or made over to the State Government for road development.

The Court concluded that the respondent-corporation's activities were not carried on with the object of making profit and were, therefore, entitled to exemption under section 11 of the 1961 Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the respondent-corporation was entitled to the exemption claimed under both the 1922 Act and the 1961 Act. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision in favor of the respondent-corporation.

← Previous Next →