Vadtal Swaminarayan Samsthan Trust v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax
High Court
17 Oct 2001 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Vadtal Swaminarayan Samsthan Trust v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Date of order
17 Oct 2001
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Vadtal Swaminarayan Samsthan Trust v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2001) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- VADTAL SWAMINARAYAN SAMSTHAN TRUST Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 218 of 1994
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- VADTAL SWAMINARAYAN SAMSTHAN TRUST
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 218 of 1994
MR KA PUJ for Petitioner
MR AKIL KURESHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date of decision: 17/10/2001
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
�In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred for our opinion in respect of assessment years 1977-78 to
1979-80 :-
�"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Trust is
entitled to recoup the deficit of
Rs.14,82,694/-, Rs.4,56,852/- and
Rs.2,34,827/- respectively for the
assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and
1979-80 from the subsequent year's
income, even though the ITO considered
the income `nil' ?
�(2) Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
was right in law in interpreting the
Bombay Bench order in the case of Balkani
Bari to come to the conclusion that the
object of the said trust might be
business and based its order solely on
that ground ?
�(3) Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
was right in law in deciding that only
trust which are having income from
business can get set off and carry
forward of loss against the income of the
subsequent year and the Trust, like the
appellant, which has no such income has
no right in law in recoup its deficit
against subsequent year's income ?"
2.�We have heard Mr KA Puj, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee and Mr Akil Kureshi, learned counsel
for the revenue.
3.�Although three different questions are referred,
the learned counsel agree that the controversy involved herein is one and the same as to whether the expenditure incurred in earlier years will be adjusted against the income in the subsequent years. This very controversy came up before this Court for consideration in CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, (1995) 211 ITR 293. This Court laid down the following principle :-
"There is nothing in the language of section 11(1)(a) of the Act to indicate that the expenditure incurred in the earlier year cannot
be met out of the income of the subsequent year
for the revenue.
3.�Although three different questions are referred,
the learned counsel agree that the controversy involved herein is one and the same as to whether the expenditure incurred in earlier years will be adjusted against the income in the subsequent years. This very controversy came up before this Court for consideration in CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, (1995) 211 ITR 293. This Court laid down the following principle :-
"There is nothing in the language of section 11(1)(a) of the Act to indicate that the expenditure incurred in the earlier year cannot
be met out of the income of the subsequent year
and utilization of such income for meeting the expenditure of the earlier year, would not amount to such income being applied for charitable or religious purposes. Income derived from trust property has to be determined on commercial principles and if commercial principles for determining the income are applied, it is but natural that the adjustment of the expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier year against income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which such adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in section 11 of the Act and will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under section 11(1)(a)."
4.�Following the aforesaid decision, our answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Our answer to question No. 3 is also in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
5.�The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
�����(M.S. Shah, J.)
�����(D.A. Mehta, J.)
sundar/-
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.