TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (2) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For the other three assessment years the assessments were completed under section 143(1). For assessment year 1975-76, the assessment was completed on 16-2-1978 and for 1976-77 and 1977-78 they were completed on 27-3-1979. Admittedly, in those assessments deduction under section 80L, of the Act was granted to the assessee-trust. After the completion of the assessments for these four years the ITO felt that he was wrong in allowing deduction under section 80L to the assessee whose status is admittedly stated to be of an AOP. Therefore, he issued a notice under section 154 of the Act to the assessee-trust to show cause as to why he should not withdraw the deduction wrongly granted under section 80L. On behalf of the assessee-trust a reply dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndram Family Charity Trust v. CIT [1968] 70 ITR 600 declared that a trust is assessable as an individual. It is further argued that the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and the Income-tax Act are in pari materia and so the above ruling of the Bombay High Court equally applies to the case arising from income-tax also. The AAC held that the prima requisite to hold that two or more individuals form an AOP is volition on the part of the members of the association as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Murugesan & Bros. v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 432 at p. 437 and as this prima requisite is absent in the case of discretionary trust a trust cannot be treated as an AOP excepting for purpose of applying the rate of tax under section 164. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as an AOP it cannot be allowed to be changed. An AOP is not entitled to section 80L relief and it is an indisputable proposition. In support of his contention that when once the status is accepted as an AOP it cannot be allowed to change subsequently. Two decisions, viz., T. Manickavasagam Chettiar v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 269 (Mad.) and P.K. Ramasamy Nadar v. Second ITO [1982] 2 ITD 624 (Mad.) were cited. In P.K. Ramasamy Nadar's case, the assessee-HUFs invested in public provident fund under a mistaken belief that the deductions thereon under section 80C of the Act are admissible to HUFs also. In fact the assessee-HUFs opened the accounts with the help of ITO and were also allowed deduction for more than one assessment year by the ITO. Lat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unity of property in force in the Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu," Now the question is whether the words 'consisting only of husband and wife', etc., etc., qualify the words 'body of individuals' or qualify the words 'an association of persons' also. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, they do not qualify the words 'an association of persons' occurring in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 80L but they qualify words 'body of individuals' only. In order to substantiate this contention he invited our attention to section 2(15) which defines the words 'charitable purpose' as follows : " 'charitable purpose' includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of ....