Case: Dharmaposhanam Co. Kerala Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala

in the way of profit making, in the case before us, under the cover of the provisions of the deed, which enables us to decipher the meaning and determine the predominantly profit-making character of the trust. 7. In a subsequent case, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cochin Chamber of Commerce and Industry [1975] 101 ITR 796 (SC), this court extended the test to income derived from activities carried on in aid of, and incidental to, the primary object of the trust. We may note that no attempt has been made by the appellant before us to cast doubt on the validity of the observations made in those two cases, and we proceed on the footing that they convey the true content of the law.It is, therefore, apparent that among the objects contained in the original unamended sub-clause (b) of clause 3 of the memorandum are objects which, while referable to the residual general head in the definition of charitable purpose in section 2(15) of the Act, none the less do not satisfy the condition that they should not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. The result is that the objects industries and common good cannot be described as charitable purposes. What follows then is this, that the said sub- clause (b) can be said to contain some objects which are non charitable. They are all objects which appear to enjoy an equal status. It is open to the appellant, in its discretion, to apply the income derived from conducting kuries and from money-lending, to any of the objects. No definite part of the business or of its income is related to charitable purposes only. Consequently, in view of Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1930] LR 57 IA 260; AIR 1930 PC 226 and East India Industries (Madras) P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 65 ITR 611 (SC), the entire claim to exemption must fail and it cannot be said that any part of the income under consideration is exempt from tax. That is the position in regard to the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 before us. 8. It has been seriously urged for the appellant that in regard to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69, the position has been radically altered by reason of the amendments made in the memorandum and the articles of association. The word industries has been dropped and the words medical relief have been added. And as regards common good, article 58 now likens it to charity, education and medical relief. None the less, it is clear from the amended sub-clause (b) of clause 3 of the memorandum that it forms a distinct object from them. The words are other matters of public good. Consequently, the object still falls under the residual general head mentioned in section 2(15). The same considerations apply, and the same conclusion follows, as under the original provisions of the memorandum and articles of association.Great reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharmodayam co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC) and it has been seriously urged that the decision of this court in that case concludes the point raised in these appeals. We find it not possible to accept this. In that case, the income derived by the assessee from kuries was held by this court to be exempt under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, but the decision proceeded almmost entirely on the assumption that the Kerala High Court had found in Dharmodayam Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1962]45 ITR 478 (Ker), in a case between the same parties, that the Kuries business was itself held under trust for charitable purpose and from that the court inferred that the business activity was not undertaken by the assessee in order to advance any object of general public untility. No such finding has been rendered by anny High Court in a case to which the appellant is a party. It will be noticed that the court cautioned in its judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharmodayam Co.[1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC) that the decision was strictly liimited to the facts of that case. 9. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that what should be taken into consideration is the activity actually conducted by the assessee, and not what is open to it under the provisions of its memorandum of association. We do not agree. Whether a trust is for charitable purposes falls to be determined by reference to all the objects for which the trust has been brought into existence. See Tennent Plays Lid. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1948] 30 TC 107 (CA) and Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and wales v. Attorney-General and commissioner of Inland Revenue [1971] 47 TC 321 (CA). In Rex v. special Commissioner of inncome Tax [1922] 8 TC 286 (CA), it was pointed out by the court of Appeal in England that if the settlor reserves to himself the power of appointment under which he might appoint to non-charitable purposes, the trust cannot claim exemption even though the power of appointment is in fact exercised in favour of a charitable object. It wouuld be a different can where one or more of the objects mentioned in the memorandum of association, although included therein, were never intended to be undertaken. If there is evidence pointing to that conclusion, clearly the court will ignore the object and proceed to consider the case as if it did not exist in the memorandum. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC), it was that basis on which this court proceeded when it observed that the assessee had never engaged itself in any industry or in any other activity of public interest.On the aforesaid consideration, we endorse the final conclusion of the High Court and hold that it rightly answered the question referred to it in the several references in the negative, in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. 10.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]On a consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the position appears to be this. The appellant can succeed in its claim to exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act if the income from the business of conducting kuries and of money-lending can be said to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes. It is well settled that business is property with the meaning of section 11(1)(a) :There can be little doubt that when sub-clause (a) of clause 3 of the memorandum says :To raise funds by conducting kuries, with company as foreman, receiving donations and subscriptions by lending money on interest and by such other means as the company deem fit, it refers to powers conferred on the appellant to raise money in aid of, and for the purpose of accomplishing, the objects mentioned in sub-clause (b) of clause 3 of the memorandum. Up to June 6, 1965, sub-clause (b) read :To do the needful for the promotion of charity, education, industries, etc., and public goodCan all the purposes mentioned in sub-clause (b) be described as charitable purposes ? Section 2(15) of the Act defines the expression charitable purpose as including relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit. Two objects in sub-clause (b) of clause 3 of the memorandum need to be considered, industries and public good. As regards the latter, the decision on what should be the purposes of common good was left to the general meeting by articles 58 of the articles of association. Having regard to the context in which these words appear in the memorandum and the articles, they must evidently be referred to the residual general head in the definition in section 2(15) of the Act, that is say, the advancement of any other object of general public utility .......... But this head is qualified by the restrictive words not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit. The operation of an industry ordinarily envisages a profit- making activity, and so far as the advancement of public good is concerned, it is open to the appellant to pursue a profit making activity in the course of carrying out that purpose, which of course depends on the nature and purpose of the public good. Nowhere do we find in the material before us any limiting provision that if the appellant carries on any activity in the course of actually carrying out those purposes of the trust it should refrain from adopting and pursuing a profit making activity. In Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1975] 101 ITR 234  , 243 (SC), Khanna and Gupta JJ., dealing with a case in which the assessee carried on a business in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the trust, rejected the claim to exemption and declared :The fact that the appellant trust is engaged in the business of printing and publication of newspaper ans journals and the further fact that the aforesaid activity yields or is one likely to yield profit and there are no restrictions on the appellant-trust earning profits in the course of its business would go to show that the purpose of the appellant-trust does not satisfy the requirement that it should be one not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit...... Ordinarily, profit motive is a normal incident of business activity and if the activity of a consists of carrying on of a business and there are no restrictions on its making profit, the court would be well justified in assuming in the absence of some indication to the contrary that the object of the trust involves the carrying on of an activity for profitConsequently, the object still falls under the residual general head mentioned in section 2(15). The same considerations apply, and the same conclusion follows, as under the original provisions of the memorandum and articles of association.Great reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharmodayam co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC) and it has been seriously urged that the decision of this court in that case concludes the point raised in these appeals. We find it not possible to accept this. In that case, the income derived by the assessee from kuries was held by this court to be exempt under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, but the decision proceeded almmost entirely on the assumption that the Kerala High Court had found in Dharmodayam Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1962]45 ITR 478   (Ker), in a case between the same parties, that the Kuries business was itself held under trust for charitable purpose and from that the court inferred that the business activity was not undertaken by the assessee in order to advance any object of general public untility. No such finding has been rendered by anny High Court in a case to which the appellant is a party. It will be noticed that the court cautioned in its judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharmodayam Co.[1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC) that the decision was strictly liimited to the facts of that caseWe do not agree. Whether a trust is for charitable purposes falls to be determined by reference to all the objects for which the trust has been brought into existence. See Tennent Plays Lid. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1948] 30 TC 107 (CA) and Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and wales v. Attorney-General and commissioner of Inland Revenue [1971] 47 TC 321 (CA). In Rex v. special Commissioner of inncome Tax [1922] 8 TC 286 (CA), it was pointed out by the court of Appeal in England that if the settlor reserves to himself the power of appointment under which he might appoint to non-charitable purposes, the trust cannot claim exemption even though the power of appointment is in fact exercised in favour of a charitable object. It wouuld be a different can where one or more of the objects mentioned in the memorandum of association, although included therein, were never intended to be undertaken. If there is evidence pointing to that conclusion, clearly the court will ignore the object and proceed to consider the case as if it did not exist in the memorandum. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 (SC), it was that basis on which this court proceeded when it observed that the assessee had never engaged itself in any industry or in any other activity of public interest.On the aforesaid consideration, we endorse the final conclusion of the High Court and hold that it rightly answered the question referred to it in the several references in the negative, in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.