2001 (11) TMI 46 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the collections by way of licence fees, fines, etc., constitute the income of the assessee.
2. Whether the receipts by way of fines, licence fees, etc., got diverted by reason of overriding title to the benevolent fund constituted by the club.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the collections by way of licence fees, fines, etc., constitute the income of the assessee.

The Madras Race Club, a company registered under the Companies Act, conducts racing and requires jockeys, trainers, and others to obtain licenses and pay fees. The stewards of the club are empowered to impose fines and penalties. The amounts realized by way of licence fees, penalties, and fines are credited to the Madras Race Club Benevolent Fund, as per rule 175 of the Rules of Racing. The assessee-club argued that these amounts did not form part of its income and were to be excluded from the computation of total income, claiming they were diverted by overriding title to the benevolent fund. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's stand, but the Revenue questioned this view.

Issue 2: Whether the receipts by way of fines, licence fees, etc., got diverted by reason of overriding title to the benevolent fund constituted by the club.

The court examined precedents, including CIT v. Tollygunge Club Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 776 and CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 60, which dealt with similar issues of income diversion by overriding title. The court noted that in those cases, the amounts were earmarked for charity ab initio and were not considered part of the assessee's income. However, in the present case, the payments made to the Madras Race Club were compulsory exactions for licenses, fines, and penalties, not voluntary contributions for benevolent purposes. The court held that these amounts reached the club as part of its income and were applied for benevolent purposes only after reaching the club.

The court concluded that the amounts collected by the club as licence fees, fines, and penalties formed part of its income. The creation of the benevolent fund and the provision in the rules for crediting sums to the fund were merely applications of a part of the club's income for benevolent purposes, not instances of diversion by overriding title. The questions referred to the court were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.