TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (3) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C, Delhi (in short "the Tribunal"): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the dividend income from the bonus shares of MMLSR (P.) Ltd. held by the assessee was exempted under section 11 for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74?" So far as the assessee's references are concerned, the following questions have been referred: "(1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the eight persons who subscribed their names to the memorandum of association of the assessee-society could be regarded as 'founders' of an 'institution', viz., the assessee-society, for the purposes of section 13(3)(a) of the In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in a company, viz., Madan Mohan Lal Siri Ram (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "company"). During the assessment years 1957 and 1960, 1,000 shares each were purchased. In 1966, 1,404 shares were allotted as bonus shares. During the assessment years in question, the assessee received several donations. The names of the donors and the amounts donated are as follows: Name of party Amount(Rs.) (a) Industrial and Allied Sales Private Ltd. &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; ------ The assessee was registered under section 12A of the Act on August 2, 1975. For the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer (in short "the ITO") determined the taxable income as Rs. 57,368. The dividend income of Rs. 45,954 was held to be taxable as according to the Income-tax Officer shares held by the trustees in the company exceeded the prescribed limit. The assessee had also claimed expenses of Rs. 2,09,946. The expenditure for charitable purpose was held to be only Rs. 56,000; as the Income-tax Officer was of the view that the provisions of section 13 of the Act had been violated. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short "the AAC"). Before the said authority, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferent in that year. The matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the stands of the parties it came to hold that the eight signatories to the memorandum of association could not be called "authors" of a trust. Looking to the objects of the society and the manner in which it was constituted and had been run it is not difficult to look upon the society as an "institution" within the meaning of section 13(3)(b) of the Act. Persons who subscribed to the memorandum of association would be described as founders of the society. So far as the contributors are concerned, it was held that they had made substantial contribution. To put it differently, it was held that the company could be described as a concern in which persons m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntee Co. [1940] AC 138). The word denotes as observed by (Lord Macnaghten in Mayor, & c. of Manchester v. McAdam [1896] 3 TC 491, 497 (HL) "... an undertaking formed to promote some defined purpose, having in view, generally, the instruction or education of the public. It is the body (so to speak) called into existence to translate the purpose as conceived in the mind of the founders into a living and active principle." The word "institution" both in legal and colloquial use, admits of application to physical things. One of its meaning as defined in Webster's Dictionary is "an establishment, especially of public character or affecting a community". The term is sometimes used as descriptive of an establishment or place where the business or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven donors had made a substantial contribution in relation to their financial capacity or in relation to the contributions made by others similarly situated. As the expression "substantial contribution" may mean something quite different to a person who is affluent from what it may mean to a person who is not so, But the language of a taxing statute does not recognise such a differentiation. In the immortal words of Rowlatt J., in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64, 71: "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language us....