TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was rightly treated as a guarantee company and not as an association of persons. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee was rightly treated as a guarantee company and not as an association of persons.
Analysis: The assessee was incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and had the character of a company limited by guarantee. Its continued treatment by the Revenue for a long period as a guarantee company was also relevant. The absence of registration under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, did not by itself convert the entity into an association of persons. The legal status had to be determined from the nature of incorporation and the governing company law framework.
Conclusion: The assessee was rightly held to be a guarantee company, and the finding was in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The dominant object of the assessee was promotion of trade and commerce, which was an object of general public utility. Clauses that appeared to authorise other activities were treated as incidental or subsidiary and did not displace the main charitable purpose. However, exemption under section 11 depended not merely on the charitable character of the objects, but also on whether the constitution and bye-laws created a legal obligation to apply the income exclusively to charitable purposes and restricted distribution of profits. The Tribunal had not examined those restrictions fully, though such an enquiry was essential in light of the possibility that a guarantee company could still distribute profits unless legally prohibited.
Conclusion: The answer on the existing findings was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, but the question was sent back for fresh consideration on whether the memorandum of association and bye-laws imposed a legal restriction against distribution of profits.
Final Conclusion: The status issue was finally decided in favour of the assessee, while the exemption issue was answered against the assessee on the present findings and remitted for reconsideration of the governing restrictions on use and distribution of income.
Ratio Decidendi: A company limited by guarantee does not become an association of persons merely because it is not registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, and exemption under section 11 depends on a legal obligation in the constitution or bye-laws to apply income exclusively to charitable objects and to restrict distribution of profits.
TaxTMI 
