TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) dated 19.5.2006 in ITA No. 668/Chandi/2003, raising following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in directing to grant the registration under Section 12AA of the Act, even when the assessee corporation is neither a trust nor a charitable institution and its income is neither derived from the property held under trust wholly or charitable or religious purposes nor from voluntary contributions? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in directing to grant the registration under Section 12AA of the Act, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inant object being general public utility, incidental profit making did not affect its character as a charitable organization. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director of Income-tax v. Bharat Diamond Bourse, 259 ITR 280 (SC). The finding recorded by the Tribunal is as under:- In the present case, the activities of the assessee are also of similar nature as in the cases before the Delhi Bench of the ITAT (supra). We accordingly hold that the appellant had been established mainly with a view to advancing the object of general public utility, which falls within the definition of 'charitable purposes'. The ld Commissioner of Income-tax was, therefore, required to consider the application of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic person to acquire, hold and dispose of property and was deemed to be a company and declared dividend did not deviate from its character as charitable body covered under Section 2(15) of the Act. Under Section 19 of the Act, 50% share capital was subscribed to by the Central Warehousing Corporation while the remaining 50% by the State Government. He submits that there was no substantial question of law as the Tribunal has followed judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Diamond Bourse's case (supra) which judgment was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat Maritime Board, [2007] 295 ITR 561. He also placed reliance on order passed by this Court on 5.7.2010 in ITA No. 33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime Board: We have perused a number of decisions of this court which have interpreted the words, in section 2(15), namely, any other object of general public utility . From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word general in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individuals would be a charitable purpose (CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association [1983] 140 ITR 1 (SC). The said expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the welfare of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
