2001 PLP 2527 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus DHARMODAYAM CO. (and another appeal)
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2527 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench Members | S.P. Bhanwha, Doraiswamy Raju and Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus DHARMODAYAM CO. (and another appeal) |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2527 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2527 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of India bench comprising: S.P. Bhanwha, Doraiswamy Raju and Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2527 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus DHARMODAYAM CO. (and another appeal)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.L. Verma, Senior. Advocate (K. Mirsaand Dhananjay Kr. Singh, Advocates with him).for Appellant.
- V. U. Bradi and C.N. Sreekumat Advocates for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Civil Appeal No.6083 of 1997 is by special leave from the judgment and order, dated January 10, 1997, of the Kerala High Court in I.T.R. No. 42 of 1994). (Civil Appeal No.6298 of 1997 is by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 19, 1997, of the Kerala High Court in I. T. R. No. 22 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑Charitable trust‑‑‑Exemption of income‑‑Business itself held on trust‑‑ New provision requiring conditions to be fulfilled applies‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal holding such trust need not satisfy new provision‑‑‑High Court‑ Reference‑‑‑Decision without due consideration of conditions‑‑‑Set aside‑‑ Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.11(4A). From the decisions of the High Court (see (1997) 225 ITR 686 and (1998) 233 ITR 250) upholding, on a reference, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that, since the kury business carried on by the assessee itself was held under trust for carrying out the primary objects of the trust, it would not be hit by the provisions of section 11,(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring certain conditions to be fulfilled, the Department preferred appeals to the Supreme Court: Held, that it was necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the trust satisfied the requirements of section 11(4A). The Supreme Court, accordingly, set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court remanded the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (1997) 225 ITR 686 (Ker.) and CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (1998) 233 ITR 250 (Ker.) set aside‑ and matters remanded to the Tribunal. CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (1997) 109 ITR,527 (SC),ref.
Judgment & Decree
From the decisions of the High Court (see (1997) 225 ITR 686 and (1998) 233 ITR 250) upholding, on a reference, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that, since the kury business carried on by the assessee itself was held under trust for carrying out the primary objects of the trust, it would not be hit by the provisions of section 11,(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring certain conditions to be fulfilled, the Department preferred appeals to the Supreme Court: Held, that it was necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the trust satisfied the requirements of section 11(4A). The Supreme Court, accordingly, set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court remanded the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (1997) 225 ITR 686 (Ker.) and CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (1998) 233 ITR 250 (Ker.) set aside‑ and matters remanded to the Tribunal. CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (1997) 109 ITR,527 (SC),ref. M.L. Verma, Senior. Advocate (K. Mirsaand Dhananjay Kr. Singh, Advocates with him).for Appellant. V. U. Bradi and C.N. Sreekumat Advocates for Respondent. The assessment years here involved are 1984‑85 and 1985‑
86. Until the introduction of section 11(4A) into the Income Tax Act, 1961 on April 1. 1984, the case of the assessee was governed by the decision of this Court in its own case (CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (1977) 109 ITR 527). Section 11(4A) has introduced conditions in the application of sub sections (1), (2), (3) and (3A) of section
11. It does not appear that the Tribunal has applied its mind to these conditions and given findings of fact as to whether or not they are satisfied, Nor has the High Court given due consideration to this aspect. To be able to decide whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption under section 11, it is necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of section 11(4A). Accordingly, the orders of the High Court under challenge and the orders of the Tribunal from which the reference was made are set aside and the matters (I.T.A. No.681/Cock. of 1987 and I.T.A. No. 264/Cock. of 1989) are restored to the file of the income‑tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin, to be considered afresh in the light of what has been stated above. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. M.B.A./967/FC Appeals allowed.