Exemptions v. Mar Thoma Syrian Church
High Court
22 Aug 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Exemptions v. Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Date of order
22 Aug 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Exemptions v. Mar Thoma Syrian Church, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2004
The Director of Income-tax
(Exemptions) .. Appellant
V/s
Mar Thoma Syrian Church .. Respondent
Mr.Sharma for the Appellant.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 22ND AUGUST 2006
P.C.
P.C. :
P.C.
1. Heard Mr.Sharma in support of this appeal.
2. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 4th August
2003 concerning the assessment of the Respondent Church
for the year 1993-94. Mr.Sharma has raised two points.
Firstly, he submitted that a document in the nature of
receipt issued to a donor was filed during the course of
the proceedings in the Tribunal. His submission is that
it should not have been permitted. The second
submission of Mr.Sharma is that a separate permission
was necessary to justify the building fund which the
Respondent had started and for that he relied upon a
- 2 -
Shreeram Religious &
judgment of the Apex Court in Shreeram Religious &
Shreeram Religious &
Charitable Trust v. C.I.T. - 233 I.T.R. 53. As far
Charitable Trust v. C.I.T. - 233 I.T.R. 53
Charitable Trust v. C.I.T. - 233 I.T.R. 53
as the first part is concerned, the fact remains that
the necessary receipt was produced in the Tribunal.
Strict rules of evidence cannot be brought in while
looking into the proceeding of a quasi-judicial
authority. As far as the permission for the particular
fund is concerned, the Respondent had an earmarked fund
of capital nature known as "Silver Jubilee Fund" and for
extension of the school building of the Respondent that
donation was being collected. In our view, there is no
reason to interfere with the order passed by the
Tribunal. Appeal is dismissed.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.