Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. R.M. C.T.M. Tiruppani Trust and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case Nos. 211 and 262 of 1975 (Reference Nos. 169 and 220 of 1975)
Judge
Reported in[1984]150ITR642(Mad)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 11 and 11(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentS. R.M. C.T.M. Tiruppani Trust and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....211 of 1975 are as follows :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under section 11(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 ? 2. whether, on a proper construction of section 11(2) of the act, the conditions contemplated therein are cumulative or alternative ? 3. whether the appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that paragraphs 2 and 4 in form no. 10 of the income-tax rules, 1962, prescribing the time-limit were beyond the powers of the rule making authority ?' 4. as far as questions nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, the matter is covered by a decision of this court in second ito v. m.c.t. trust : [1976]102itr138(mad) . following the said decision, the questions have to.....
Judgment:

Sethuraman, J.

1. Though the assessees in these two cases are different,the questions referred for the opinion of this court are identical. Therefore, it is enough to consider the questions referred in T.C. No. 211 of 1975 only.

2. It may be mentioned here that in T.C. No. 211 of 1975, the assessment years relevant are 1963-64 and 1964-65 and in T.C. No. 262 of 1975, the assessment years are 1963-64 and 1965-66.

3. The questions in T.C. No. 211 of 1975 are as follows :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?

2. Whether, on a proper construction of Section 11(2) of the Act, the conditions contemplated therein are cumulative or alternative ?

3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that paragraphs 2 and 4 in Form No. 10 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, prescribing the time-limit were beyond the powers of the Rule making authority ?'

4. As far as questions Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, the matter is covered by a decision of this court in Second ITO v. M.C.T. Trust : [1976]102ITR138(Mad) . Following the said decision, the questions have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessees.

5. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, that was not the subject of consideration by the Tribunal and had not been raised at any stage. As the matter had not been considered by the Tribunal itself, we do not think that this question can be said to arise out of the Tribunal's order. Therefore, we return the reference as far as this question is concerned unanswered. The same are the answers in the other reference also. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //