9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inception. 3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The assessee is an association. It filed an application in form No. l0A on 21st March, 1994 before the Director of IT (Exemptions), Chennai. On a perusal of the memorandum and bye-laws of the association, it was found that the association was formed for the purpose of protection of interests of the traders and business associates who were its members. This was not construed to be a charitable activity. As such registration was denied to the assessee. 4. Thereafter assessee got its objects modified by a resolution passed on 13th March, 2000. According to the modified objects, the association would strive to promote the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trader with that of trade. It is, therefore, necessary that a distinction should be made between the interests of the traders and the interests of the trade itself. At the time of inception the objects contained in the memorandum were found not to be charitable objects. As such amendment was prompted for the sake of availing the benefit of s. 11. 6. It was further stated that the application filed by the assessee for the registration on 21st March, 1994 was rejected. No remedial measure was taken against such rejection. The order of rejection as such has become final. The assessee did file a fresh application which was considered and on the basis of the modified objects, registration was granted from the date the objects were modified, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not be a judgment in rem. It would be a judgment in personam binding on the parties to the rectified instrument, namely, the settlor on the one hand and the trustees on the other, as well as on the ultimate beneficiaries. 9. The fact that the assessee at its own made rectification in the objects to avail the benefit of s. 11 clearly manifests that the objects at the time of inception of the institution were not for charitable purposes. On the rejection of registration application, assessee instead of contesting the order decided to modify the objects so as to avail the benefit of s. 11. Such modification is to be applied prospectively. There is no evidence that de hors objects for charity assessee indulged in charitable activities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
