9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the receipt of Rs. 12,156 representing the Kanikkai and Sambhavanai received by the assessee herein from his disciples, was not in the natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y profession or vocation. Following the earlier order passed in the case of the same assessee, the Tribunal in the assessment year under consideration held that the sum of Rs. 12,156 was not income liable to tax. Learned standing counsel for the Department submitted that the Jeer Swamigal is holding the office as the head of Shri Vanamamalai Mutt. Swamigal is professing the cult of the Hindu reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sub-clause excluded from the definition of "income" voluntary contributions made to a charitable trust "with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the Trust". The voluntary payment may be neither income nor capital in the hands of the respondent. Personal gifts and some voluntary payments are not income although at the same time they cannot be regarded as capital receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. In the present case Kanikkai and Sambhavanai were paid by the devotees to the Jeer Swamigal out of personal regard, personal esteem and veneration. The Swamiji is not exercising any profession or avocation. The voluntary offerings made by devotees though offered to the Swamiji are not for any profession or vocation in which the Swamiji indulged. Since the voluntary contributions were made as of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
