C.I.T. BOMBAY vs. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2115/1980Supreme Court[1981] 3 S.C.R. 54222 April 1981Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: V.D. TULZAPURKAR, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH B11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, the Bar Council of Maharashtra, derived income from securities (interest) and enrolment fees during assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, and 1964-65. The Income Tax Officer subjected this income to tax. The assessee claimed exemption under sections 10(23A) and 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner denied exemption under section 10(23A) due to lack of Central Government approval and held that securities were not held for charitable purposes. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal granted exemption for enrolment fees under section 10(23A) due to subsequent approval but remanded the case for examination of the purpose for which securities were held. The High Court, on reference, held the Bar Council to be a body for general public utility under section 2(15) for purposes of section 11. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the primary or dominant purpose of the Bar Council of Maharashtra, considering the Preamble of the Advocates Act, 1961, and its obligatory functions under section 6(1), was the advancement of an object of general public utility within the meaning of section 2(15). The Court reasoned that functions like admitting advocates, maintaining rolls, taking disciplinary action, promoting law reform, conducting seminars, and providing legal aid to the poor all contribute to ensuring quality service to the litigating public and promoting legal literacy. While safeguarding advocates' rights is an obligatory function, it ensures professional standards and independence necessary for societal duties, and the benefit to lawyers is incidental. The Court also clarified that the restrictive words in section 2(15) qualify the 'object' and not its 'advancement', and since the Bar Council does not carry on activities for profit, the restriction does not apply. Consequently, income from securities held by the Council would be exempt under section 11. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Bar Council of Maharashtra could be considered a body intended to advance an object of general public utility falling within section 2(15) for the purposes of section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that its primary and dominant purpose, as reflected in its obligatory functions under the Advocates Act, 1961, was the advancement of an object of general public utility. The Revenue argued that the primary object of the Bar Council was to benefit its members, specifically by safeguarding their rights and privileges under section 6(1)(d) of the Advocates Act, making any public benefit incidental or remote. The Revenue also contended that the restrictive words 'not involving the carrying on any activity for profit' in section 2(15) qualified the advancement of the object, not the object itself.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(15),Section 11,Section 10(23A),Section 6(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B c D E F G H 542 C. I. T. BOMBAY v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT April 22, 1981 [V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961, section 2(15) and 11-Whether the Bar Councils consti- tuted under the Advocates Act, 1961, are bodies intended to advance any object of general public utility falling within section 2( 15) for purposes of section 11 of the Act.

The income derived by the Bar Council of Maharashtra from securities (inte- rest) and other income by way of enrolment fees during the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 was subjected to tax by the Income Tax Officer. Since the Central Government had accorded approval to the assessee for the purpose of section 10(23A) during the jpendency of the appeal before the Tribunal by a notification dated August 5, 1966 with effect from December 28, 1961, the Tribunal held that the assessee Council was entitled to exemption under section 10(23A) in respect of its income by way of enrolment fees. The Tribunal remanded the case oack to the Appellate Assistant Commis- sioner and directed him to dispose of the ca

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(15)

All 2,855 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(15) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →