In regard to the income by way of interest on the securities the Tribunal observed that the character of the body holding the securities was number by itself decisive, that safeguarding the rights, privileges and interest of advocates on its roll companyld number be said to be an object of general public utility, that the real question to be companysidered under s. 11 was whether the securities were held for any charitable purpose or number and the tribunal found that there was numberevidence or material on record touching this aspect.
The matter was carried in further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and since by that time the Central Government had accorded approval to the assessee for the purpose of s. 10 23A by a numberification dated August 5, 1966 with effect from December 28, 1961, the Tribunal held that the assessee Council was entitled to exemption under s. 10 23A in respect of its income by way of enrollment fees.
In appeals preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was companytended by the assessee that its other income by enrollment fees was exempt under s. 10 23A and interest on securities was exempt from tax under s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
142 of 1969.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 8 the August, 1978 of the Bombay High Court in Income Tax Reference No.
It, therefore, remanded the case back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and directed him to dispose of the case by examining the question as to the purpose for which the securities were held by the assessee Council.
9,356 Rs 96,322 The Income Tax Officer subjected to tax the income from both the sources for all the three years.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
During the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1962 63, 1963 64 and 1964 65 the assessee derived income from securities interest and other income by way of enrollment fees particulars whereof, are as follows Assessment year Interest on securities Other Income 1962 63 Rs.
8,629 Rs 3,04,103 1964 65 Rs.
The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question may briefly be stated.
He took the view that the main object of the assessee Council was to benefit the legal profession its Members and, therefore, the object was number one of general public utility.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. These appeals by special leave raise the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee Council companyld be taken to be a body intended to advance any object of general public utility falling within s. 2 15 for purposes of s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
N. Ganpule and Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna for the Respondent.
2115 to 2117 of 1980.
C. Manchanda and A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
Accordingly he companyfirmed the assessment orders for the three years.
N. Ganpule for Intervener No.
C. Patel for Intervener No.
The respondent assessee Bar Council of Maharashtra is a body companyporate established under the Advocates Act, 1961 Act 25 of 1961 which came into force on December 28, 1961.
3,779 Rs 28,035 1963 64 Rs.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner negatived the exemption claimed under s. 10 23A in the absence of the Central Governments numberification according approval to the association and with regard to the claim for exemption in respect of the interest on securities he held that it was number established that the securities were held on trust for any charitable purpose.
