Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tax exemption granted for property held for religious and charitable purposes</h1> <h3>Mahant Indresh Charan Das Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh.</h3> Mahant Indresh Charan Das Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh. - [1971] 81 ITR 435 Issues Involved:1. Whether the property was held by the assessee under 'other legal obligations' wholly for religious or charitable purposes.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legal Obligation and Religious/Charitable Purpose:The core issue referred under section 24(4) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, was whether the property was held by the assessee under 'other legal obligations' wholly for religious or charitable purposes.Background:A notice under section 15(3) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act was served to the assessee, who claimed that the agricultural income of the darbar was exempt under section 8 of the Act. The initial assessing authority agreed, but subsequent assessments for different years resulted in a different view, leading to appeals and revision applications. The Revision Board eventually ruled against the assessee, prompting this reference.Section 8 of the Act:Section 8 provides that income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes shall be exempt from tax.Assessee's Argument:The assessee argued that the property, consisting of forty villages, was endowed for the temple of Guru Ram Rai and managed by successive mahants who lived celibate lives and did not treat the property as personal. The institution performed various charitable and religious activities, including running educational institutions, providing medical relief, and organizing religious festivals.State's Argument:The State contended that the property was neither held under trust nor any legal obligation for religious or charitable purposes, and the income was not spent on such purposes.Revision Board's Findings:The Revision Board dismissed the relevance of historical gazetteers and relied on a written statement allegedly filed by the assessee in previous proceedings, concluding that the property was not held under any legal obligation for religious or charitable purposes. The Board also noted the absence of penal clauses in the thamra patras (copper plates) granted by the Nepal ruler, which it interpreted as a lack of enforceable obligation on the mahant to perform religious duties.Court's Analysis:The court examined the historical and legal context of the Udasi sect, founded by Sri Chand, son of Guru Nanak, and its practices. The court considered various historical documents, including inscriptions, memoirs, and gazetteers, which supported the view that the property was endowed for religious and charitable purposes.Key Findings:- The property was endowed by Raja Fateh Shah of Garhwal and confirmed by subsequent rulers, including the British, for the support of the temple and its religious activities.- The institution performed various charitable and religious functions, including running educational institutions, providing medical relief, and organizing religious festivals.- The property was managed by successive mahants who were elected from among the disciples of the last deceased mahant, indicating a religious institution rather than personal property.- The court rejected the Revision Board's reliance on the written statement without having it on record and emphasized the historical evidence supporting the endowment's religious and charitable nature.Conclusion:The court concluded that the property was held by the assessee under a legal obligation wholly for religious and charitable purposes. The question was answered in the affirmative, and the assessee was entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 300.Separate Judgments:R.L. Gulati J. concurred with the judgment delivered by Pathak J., agreeing with the analysis and conclusion.Final Decision:The property was held under a legal obligation wholly for religious and charitable purposes, and the assessee was entitled to the tax exemption claimed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found