TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,820 and Rs. 1,900 being credits in the name of Mahatma Satyanand and Mahatma Gianand, respectively? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,163 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of membership subscription? I.T.R. No. 99 of 1986: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 70,742 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of amount spent on acquiring/constructing capital asset? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,525 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of membership subscription received holding that it is income from property held under trust and not income from other sources? I.T.R. No. 100 of 1986: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding the interest income of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,26,662 made by the Income-tax Officer holding it as capital expenditure? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in excluding the agricultural income of Rs. 8,187? I.T.R. No. 107 of 1990: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income received by the asses-see by way of subscription from its members was not assessable to income-tax by virtue of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? I.T.R. No. 199 of 1990: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income received by the assessee-Mission by way of subscription from its members is not assessable to income-tax? I.T.R. No. 24 of 1991: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,163 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of membership subscription? I.T.R. No. 454 of 1992: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,26,662 (in I.T.R. No. 171 of 1989) and Rs. 4,09,917 (in I.T.R. No. 141 of 89) by holding it to be an application towards object of the trust?" On behalf of the Revenue it is fairly stated that this question is required to be decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue on the question of facts as the amount has been spent for the object of the trust. In I.T.R. No. 454 of 1992 the following question is carved out over and above the group of four questions: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the receipt of donations of Rs. 4,84,506 is exempt under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" On behalf of the Revenue, it is fairly stated that this question is required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue on the facts. In I.T.A. No. 150 of 2001, the following additional question is carved out over and above the aforesaid four questions referred in para. 3: "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount being kept in suspense account would qualify for the purpose of exemption under section 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or not? The amount cannot be separated and kept in suspense account but the amount received by the trust is required to be spent for a particular object or it is required to be set apart for the said object. Over and above this, the amount set apart for the object of the trust is required to be communicated to the Assessing Officer in Form No. 10. The assessee, having not done so, the provisions of section 12 cannot be attracted. If an assessee is seeking a benefit, then he can request for the benefit provided the procedure required to be followed under the Act or the Rules is followed by the assessee. In the instant case, by stating that the amount is kept in a suspense account, the assessee cannot get the benefit as the same was not kept in a separate account for a separate object by following the procedure indicated in the Act or the Rules and, therefore, this question is required to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We now take up the only remaining question (question No. 1 in paragraph 3) with regard to income received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncerned, it is with some compulsion. If one wants to become a member of a trust and if he is required to pay subscription, as in the instant case, then, it amounts to compulsion. Sometimes it becomes a question of prestige, i.e., to say, that a person is a member of a charitable institution. If a person had made voluntary contribution to the said trust, then on payment of such contribution he does not become a member. The membership may be coupled with benefits or duties and that all depends on the nature of the trust and terms and conditions of the contract. Sometimes members are getting certain privileges or rights. Therefore, such subscription fee has been considered as income of the institutions. Coming to income derived from property and property held under trust, one has to consider the meaning of the word "income". Even by an Act (Finance Act, 1972) with effect from April 1, 1973, voluntary contribution received by a trust has been included in the definition of "income". The amount of fee covers membership or subscription, which is not included in income. However, the term is very wide. It refers to receiving money or monetary benefits, perquisite, etc. Therefore, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rust is there or not. By way of subscription, if the amount is received, can it be said that that is income derived from property held under trust. The Bombay High Court observed that the question is beyond the controversy in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722. Under almost identical provisions the Andhra Chamber of Commerce was constituted and when a similar attempt to tax that Chamber was made, one of the questions which arose was whether the objects and purposes of the Chamber of Commerce showed that it was for general public utility. Considering various decisions, the Bombay High Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the property held by the assessee-company was for an object of general public utility and was wholly for charitable purposes. The question posed before the court was upon the words used in sub-section (3) of section 4 "any income derived from property held under trust" and its interpretation. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that it is not the requirement of sub-section that the income of the assessee should be held under trust but that the income should be derived ....