1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax

32 ITR 535Supreme Court of India1957#6978 most cited

What is 1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax authority for?

When two categories are enacted as separate clauses, one does not exclude the other, even if a proviso is later introduced.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2022.

Also referred to as

1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax · 1957 · Section 4(3) · proviso · separate clauses · exemption · tax law

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 11(4)section 61section 60section 11(4a)section 11(1)section 260section 260asection 2(15)section 12asection 26section 12

Judgments citing 1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21762 OF 2017 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No. 8193/2012; C.A. No. 5057/2012; C.A. No. 5058/2014; C.A. No. 9974/2018; C.A. No. 5056/2012; C.A. No. 4196/2015; C.A. No. 4374/2015; C.A. No. 9380/2017; C.A. No. 13071/2017; C.A. No. 12058/2017; C.A. No. 16375/2017; C.A. No. 12869/2017; C.A. No. 17527/2017; C.A. No. 21845/2017; C.A. No. 5719/2018; C.A. No. 988…

Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasee vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ittee of the Privy Council in In re. Trustees of the Tribune [1939] 7 ITR 415 that property in the corresponding section 4(3)(j) of the 1922 Act included business and this principle was affirmed by the pronouncements of this Court in J.K. Trust v . CIT [1957] 32 ITR 535 and CIT v . P. Krishna Warrior [1964] 53 ITR 176. Section 11, sub-section (4), merely gave statutory recognition to this principle. New section 13(1)(bb) , introduced in the 1961 Act with effect from 1-4-1977, provides that in the case of a charitable trust or institution for the relief of the poor, deduction or medical relief which carries on any…

Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasee vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ittee of the Privy Council in In re. Trustees of the Tribune [1939] 7 ITR 415 that property in the corresponding section 4(3)(j) of the 1922 Act included business and this principle was affirmed by the pronouncements of this Court in J.K. Trust v . CIT [1957] 32 ITR 535 and CIT v . P. Krishna Warrior [1964] 53 ITR 176. Section 11, sub-section (4), merely gave statutory recognition to this principle. New section 13(1)(bb) , introduced in the 1961 Act with effect from 1-4-1977, provides that in the case of a charitable trust or institution for the relief of the poor, deduction or medical relief which carries on any…

M/S. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Varanasi

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ittee of the Privy Council in In re. Trustees of the Tribune [1939] 7 ITR 415 that property in the corresponding section 4(3)(j) of the 1922 Act included business and this principle was affirmed by the pronouncements of this Court in J.K. Trust v . CIT [1957] 32 ITR 535 and CIT v . P. Krishna Warrior [1964] 53 ITR 176. Section 11, sub-section (4), merely gave statutory recognition to this principle. New section 13(1)(bb) , introduced in the 1961 Act with effect from 1-4-1977, provides that in the case of a charitable trust or institution for the relief of the poor, deduction or medical relief which carries on any…

M/S. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ittee of the Privy Council in In re. Trustees of the Tribune [1939] 7 ITR 415 that property in the corresponding section 4(3)(j) of the 1922 Act included business and this principle was affirmed by the pronouncements of this Court in J.K. Trust v . CIT [1957] 32 ITR 535 and CIT v . P. Krishna Warrior [1964] 53 ITR 176. Section 11, sub-section (4), merely gave statutory recognition to this principle. New section 13(1)(bb) , introduced in the 1961 Act with effect from 1-4-1977, provides that in the case of a charitable trust or institution for the relief of the poor, deduction or medical relief which carries on any…

ITO(E), Ghaziabad vs. Rajkiya Audyogik Krishi Pradarshani Avam Govt. Industrial & Agriculture Exhibition, Aligarh

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6735/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Tyagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…g to the contrary in the enactment. There is nothing in the language of section 11 which restricts in any manner the normal and accepted meaning of the word ‘property’. In this regard, we may refer the judgment of Apex Court in the case of J.K. Trust vs. CIT, 32 ITR 535 (SC). Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of A.J. Patel vs. CIT, 97 ITR 683 (Bom) held that the right to exploit space on either side of an overbridge for advertisements is a ‘property’. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in the submissions of the Id. Departmental Representative, therefore, the same is dismissed.…

Inter Church Service Association, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1253/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1253/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Inter Church Service Association, The Deputy Director Of Income Tax No.107 (Old No.93), V. (Exemptions)-Iv, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 008. Pan : Aaati 1256 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak John, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11o

…[1993] 199 ITR 15(Cal.) that “The “income” contemplated by the provisions of section 11 is the real income and not the income as assessed or assessable”. Further, Hon’ble Apex High Court has held in the case of J.K.Trust Vs. Ld. CIT /CEPT reported in [1957] 32 ITR 535(SC) that “Property” is a term of the widest import, and subject any limitation or qualification which the context might require, it signifies every possible interest which a person can acquire, hold and enjoy. Business would undoubtedly be property unless there is something to the contrary in the enactment. ] When the Trust applies its funds from…

Rama Naick Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2930/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2930/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. A. Kanagaraj, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 32Section 42

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, एस एम सी "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL S M C BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2930/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s Rama Naick Charitable The DDIT Trust, v. Exemptions II, 274, T.H. Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 021. PAN : AAATT0484B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh. A. Kanagaraj, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 10.07.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pr…

CIT vs. Mehta Charitable Prajnalaya Trust

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITA/1050/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 1Section 260A

…e two clauses having been enacted as two different clauses, it must be taken that the one did not exclude the other. This judgment of the Lahore High Court was approvingly referred to by the Supreme Court in 1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1957) 32 ITR 535. The judgment of the Supreme Court in 1K Trust v. CIT (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court (a Bench of equal strength) in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Warriar (P.), (1964)53 ITR 176. By that time clause (ia) of Section 4(3) ITA 309/2O03,417/2003,18/2004,722I2007,770'201 1,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 Page 10 of20 Lie had been ena…

CIT vs. Mehta Charitable Prajnalaya Trust

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITA/1051/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 1Section 260A

…e two clauses having been enacted as two different clauses, it must be taken that the one did not exclude the other. This judgment of the Lahore High Court was approvingly referred to by the Supreme Court in 1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1957) 32 ITR 535. The judgment of the Supreme Court in 1K Trust v. CIT (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court (a Bench of equal strength) in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Warriar (P.), (1964)53 ITR 176. By that time clause (ia) of Section 4(3) ITA 309/2O03,417/2003,18/2004,722I2007,770'201 1,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 Page 10 of20 Lie had been ena…

Director of Income Tax Exemptions vs. Mehta Charitable Prajnalay Trust

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITA/770/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 1Section 260A

…e two clauses having been enacted as two different clauses, it must be taken that the one did not exclude the other. This judgment of the Lahore High Court was approvingly referred to by the Supreme Court in 1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1957) 32 ITR 535. The judgment of the Supreme Court in 1K Trust v. CIT (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court (a Bench of equal strength) in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Warriar (P.), (1964)53 ITR 176. By that time clause (ia) of Section 4(3) ITA 309/2O03,417/2003,18/2004,722I2007,770'201 1,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 Page 10 of20 Lie had been ena…

CIT vs. Mehta Charitable Prajnalaya Trust

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITA - 1051 / 2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2012
Section 1Section 260A

…e two clauses having been enacted as two different clauses, it must be taken that the one did not exclude the other. This judgment of the Lahore High Court was approvingly referred to by the Supreme Court in 1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1957) 32 ITR 535. The judgment of the Supreme Court in 1K Trust v. CIT (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court (a Bench of equal strength) in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Warriar (P.), (1964)53 ITR 176. By that time clause (ia) of Section 4(3) ITA 309/2O03,417/2003,18/2004,722I2007,770'201 1,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 Page 10 of20 Lie 2012:DHC:7960-…

CIT vs. Mehta Charitable Prajnalaya Trust

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITA - 1050 / 2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2012
Section 1Section 260A

…e two clauses having been enacted as two different clauses, it must be taken that the one did not exclude the other. This judgment of the Lahore High Court was approvingly referred to by the Supreme Court in 1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1957) 32 ITR 535. The judgment of the Supreme Court in 1K Trust v. CIT (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court (a Bench of equal strength) in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Warriar (P.), (1964)53 ITR 176. By that time clause (ia) of Section 4(3) ITA 309/2O03,417/2003,18/2004,722I2007,770'201 1,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 Page 10 of20 Lie 2012:DHC:7960-…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mehta Charitable Prajnalay Trust

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITA - 18 / 2004HC Delhi20 Nov 2012
Section 1Section 260A

…e two clauses having been enacted as two different clauses, it must be taken that the one did not exclude the other. This judgment of the Lahore High Court was approvingly referred to by the Supreme Court in 1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1957) 32 ITR 535. The judgment of the Supreme Court in 1K Trust v. CIT (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court (a Bench of equal strength) in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Warriar (P.), (1964)53 ITR 176. By that time clause (ia) of Section 4(3) ITA 309/2O03,417/2003,18/2004,722I2007,770'201 1,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 Page 10 of20 Lie 2012:DHC:7960-…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mehta Charitable Prajnalay Trust

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITA/309/2003HC Delhi20 Nov 2012
Section 11Section 260A

…two clauses having been enacted as two different clauses, it must be taken that the one did not exclude the other. This judgment of the Lahore High Court was approvingly referred to by the Supreme Court in J. K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1957) 32 ITR 535. The judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K. Trust v. CIT (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court (a Bench of equal strength) in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Warriar (P.), (1964) 53 ITR 176. By that time clause (ia) of Section 4(3) 2012:DHC:6899-DB ITA 309/2003,417/2003,18/2004,722/2007,770/2011,1050/2011 and 1051/2011 P…

Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA., Venjkatarao AND Others

ITTA/309/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

1 K. Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (32 ITR 535) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax