COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CIVIL APPEAL No. 941/1963Supreme Court[1965] 1 S.C.R. 56501 October 1964Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI B16 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the object of promoting trade, commerce, and industry in India is an object of general public utility and thus a charitable purpose under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court reasoned that such promotion benefits not only the trading class but the entire country, and it is sufficient if the intention is to benefit a section of the public. The Court found no vagueness in the company's objects and stated that specifying the modus operandi is not necessary for an object of general public utility. Regarding the political aspect, the Court held that a purpose does not cease to be charitable if it includes taking steps to urge or oppose legislation affecting commerce, trade, or manufacture, provided the primary purpose remains the advancement of general public utility. In this case, the object of influencing legislation was considered purely ancillary or subsidiary to the primary charitable objects of promoting trade and commerce. Therefore, the rental income was held to be exempt. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Andhra Chamber of Commerce, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, with the primary object of promoting, protecting, and developing trade, commerce, and industry in India. It owned a building, parts of which were let out to tenants. In income-tax proceedings for assessment years 1948-49 to 1954-55, the assessee claimed exemption for rental income under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, contending it was a charitable institution. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim, assessing the rental income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also held the assessee was not a charitable institution. The High Court, however, ruled in favour of the assessee, holding it to be a charitable institution and its property income exempt. The Revenue appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the object of promoting trade, commerce, and industry in India constitutes a charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, making the rental income exempt. Assessee's arguments: The assessee contended that its objects were for the promotion of trade, commerce, and industry, which are objects of general public utility and therefore charitable. It argued that the benefit extended to the public at large and not just its members. It also argued that the inclusion of an object to urge or oppose legislation affecting trade was ancillary and did not negate the charitable nature of the primary objects. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that the property was not held for a charitable purpose. It contended that the company's objects were vague, that the benefit was primarily for the members of the company and not the general public, and that the objects were political, as the company could appropriate its entire income for political purposes, including urging or opposing legislation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 4(3)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 167 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

A B c D E F G H

565.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS v. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE October 1, 1964 (K. SuBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI JI.) Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11of1922), s. 4(3)(i)-Charitable pur- posei meaning of-Conzpany's object to proniote trade, com1nerc:e and industry, whether charitable-Urging or opposing legislation affecting trade etc.-Object whether political. The assesseo c~mpany-The Andhra Chamber of Commerce-had as its main object the promotion, protection, and development of trade, comM merce and industry in India. It owned a building where it had ils offices, and those parts of it not in the company's own use were let out to tenants. In income-tax proceedings the company claimed exemption in respect of the rental income under s.4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The claim was negatived by the assessing and appellate authorities. The High Court, however, held that the company was a charitable institution and its income from property was exempt under s. 4(3)(i). The Re- venue appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. It was contended by the appellant that the property was not held by the company for a charit

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →