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>Court denies tax exemption to society due to voting rights deviation from law, ruling in favor of Revenue.</h1> <h3>Gora Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Mandali Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> Gora Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Mandali Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1986] 161 ITR 658, 51 CTR 177, 24 TAXMANN 631 Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Summary:1. Entitlement to exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The core issue was whether the assessee society, a co-operative society assessed as an association of persons, was entitled to exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer denied the exemption, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed it, stating that the society met the conditions for exemption. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the society's bye-laws allowed voting rights to social workers and individuals interested in the uplift of adivasi labourers, which contravened the proviso to section 80P(2)(a)(vi). The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's view, denying the exemption.The High Court examined the relevant bye-laws and the proviso to section 80P(2)(a)(vi), which restricts voting rights to individuals who contribute their labour, co-operative credit societies, and the State Government. The Court noted that the society's bye-laws extended voting rights beyond these categories, thus failing to meet the proviso's conditions. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to prevent outsiders from influencing the society's operations, ensuring that only specified members had voting rights.The Court rejected the assessee's argument that the proviso should be interpreted to allow exemption unless outsiders were actually enrolled as members with voting rights. The Court held that the language of the proviso was clear and unambiguous, and a literal interpretation did not lead to absurd results. The Court concluded that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the proviso and denied the exemption.Conclusion:The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the assessee society was not entitled to exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as its bye-laws did not restrict voting rights to the specified categories of members. The reference was disposed of in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 