Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (10) TMI 2029

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....background: Petitioner-Amul Research &Development Association ['ARDA' for short] is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and, is in existence since 1964. Some of the main objects of the petitioner-association are to carry out research, development and extension work conducive to the economic development of the agriculturist, to undertake research and establish and run veterinary hospitals and laboratories and services etc. ARDA was approved under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act for the first time under a notification dated 15.04.1965. Such approval was granted time and again therefrom. In the year 1990 for one year and in the year 1993 for the period between 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1994 and so on. Lastly, under a notification da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ists in the field of animal nutrition, breeding and biology etc. 4. CBDT issued a notice dated 08.02.2012 calling upon the petitioner to supply certain details inter alia of new addition to plant and and machinery since 01.04.2006. It was pointed out that the petitioner had diverse objects as per the Memorandum of Association. According to the authority, approval could be granted only if the sole object of the applicant is scientific research. The petitioner was therefore not eligible for grant of approval.  5. The petitioner replied to such show-cause notice under letter dated 20.02.2012 contending that the requirements of Rule 5D of the Rules were not mandatory. In any case, the sole object of the trust was scientific research.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he year 1965 under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act CBDT failed to examine the material on record in proper perspective. (ii) The objects of the Trust are clear so were the activities undertaken by ARDA. The objects cannot be seen in isolation and any object in the nature of subsidiary or ancillary to the main object of research cannot be construed in isolation to hold that scientific research was not the sole object of the trust. 8. Rule 5D of the Rules prescribes procedure for approval. The condition of scientific research being the sole object contained in such Rule cannot be implemented with rigidity. This condition does not form part of the main section. 9. Reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the sole object of the research association should be to undertake scientific research thus emanates from sub-rule (1) of Rule 5D of the Rules. 12. In this context, we may refer to the objects of the Trust. These objects are incorporated in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of ARDA. Clause (3) of the memorandum contains seventeen different objects. This contains the object of carrying out research, development and extension work conducive to the economic development of agriculturist and to provide the organization for the benefit and service to the farmers and to implement programmes to improve the productive efficiency of livestock husbandry and agriculture. It also includes the object of promoting research, lectures, discussio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 15. The CBDT erred in rejecting the application of the Trust for approval for several reasons. Firstly, as noted, right from the year 1965 till about the year 1996, all successive applications of the petitioner Trust for approval were granted. It is not the case of the respondents that objects of the Trust underwent any material changes. In absence of any such change, there had to be strong reasons for the authorities to take a different view while entertaining the petitioner's fresh application for approval, particularly, when for years together, the authorities themselves had granted such approval. For close to 30 years based on the same objects the authorities granted the approval. Many years later they changed the opinion and bel....