TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trust property held for charitable purposes exempt from taxation under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY II Versus WALCHAND DIAMOND JUBILEE TRUST</h3> COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY II Versus WALCHAND DIAMOND JUBILEE TRUST - [1958] 34 ITR 228 (Bom) Issues Involved:1. Exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. Applicability of Section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.3. Competence of the Income-tax Officer to convert refund proceedings into assessment proceedings.4. Taxation at the maximum rate under Section 41.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:The primary issue was whether the income from the trust was exempt from tax under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The trust was created by Walchand Hirachand on May 31, 1943, with the primary object of investing in shares of Premier Construction Co. Ltd. for 18 years, after which the income would be used for charitable purposes such as scholarships, medical relief, and aid to the poor and distressed. The Tribunal accepted the trustees' contention that the income was exempt under Section 4(3)(i), stating that the proviso allowing preference to employees of Premier Construction Co. Ltd. was discretionary and not mandatory. The High Court agreed, noting that the trust's dominant intention was charitable, and the direction for investment did not change the charitable nature of the trust. The Court emphasized that the object of the trust was charitable and that the income, even if accumulated for 18 years, was ultimately intended for charitable purposes.2. Applicability of Section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:The second issue was whether Section 41 applied to the trust's income. The Tribunal did not address this issue, as it had already accepted the first contention regarding the exemption under Section 4(3)(i). The High Court noted that the Tribunal would consider this issue if it became necessary in the future.3. Competence of the Income-tax Officer to convert refund proceedings into assessment proceedings:The trustees raised the issue of whether it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to convert refund proceedings into assessment proceedings. However, the Tribunal did not find this issue relevant to its order, and the High Court did not address it further.4. Taxation at the maximum rate under Section 41:The trustees also questioned whether the income was liable to be taxed at the maximum rate under Section 41. The Tribunal did not decide on this issue, as it had already accepted the exemption under Section 4(3)(i). The High Court similarly did not address this issue, noting that it would be considered if necessary in the future.Conclusion:The High Court answered the primary question in the affirmative, confirming that the trust property was held wholly for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Consequently, the income derived from the trust was exempt from tax. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs, and the reference was answered in the affirmative.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
