9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "applied" in section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Inclusion of capital gains in the computation of income under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Jurisdiction and validity of the Tribunal's order in Miscellaneous Petition No. 87 [Hyd.] 1974-75. Summary: Issue 1: Interpretation of "applied" in section 11(1)(a) The court examined whether the term "applied" in s. 11(1)(a) of the I.T. Act should be understood as "spent" or if it includes amounts earmarked by resolutions but not yet disbursed. The Tribunal concluded that amounts earmarked by resolutions during the accounting year should be considered "applied" even if disbursed later. The court agreed, stating that "applied" should not be equated with "spent" and that the legislative intent would have explicitly required actual spending if that was the requirement. The court referenced CIT v. Radhaswami Satsang Sabha and H. E. H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT to support its interpretation. The court found that the amounts debited to the income and expenditure account and credited to the outstanding payment account constituted application of funds for charitable purposes within the meaning of s. 11(1)(a). Issue 2: Inclusion of Capital Gains The Tribunal initially left open the issue of whether capital gains should be included in the income computation for s. 11(1)(a). Upon reconsideration in Miscellaneous Petition No. 87 [Hyd.] 1974-75, the Tribunal referred to a circular from the Board dated May 16, 1963, and June 1, 1968, which stated that capital gains used to acquire another capital asset for the trust should be regarded as applied for charitable purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the capital gains from the sale of shares, which were invested in bank deposits, should be excluded from the income computation. This interpretation was supported by the statutory force given to the circular through the insertion of s. 11(1A) in 1971, with retrospective effect from 1962. The court agreed, noting that the capital gains should be excluded, resulting in no shortfall in expenditure for charitable purposes. Consequently, question No. 1 need not be answered. Issue 3: Jurisdiction and Validity of Tribunal's Order The Commissioner filed an application to refer three questions of law regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the validity of its order in M.P. No. 87 [Hyd.] 1974-75. The Tribunal had left the issue of capital gains open in its original order and addressed it in the subsequent order. The court found that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass the order as the issue was expressly left open. Therefore, I.T.C. No. 80/79 was dismissed. Conclusion: In R.C. No. 142 of 1977, the second question was answered in the affirmative, and question No. 1 was deemed unnecessary to answer. I.T.C. No. 80/1979 was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
|
