High courts not to go into facts
In a tenancy dispute, the issue whether the landlord genuinely requires his property for his personal use is a question of fact and it should be decided on evidence by the trial court. The high court cannot go into the evidence and take its own decision on questions of facts unless law was involved, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case, Kalpesh Shah vs Manhar Auto Stores.
A lower court had ordered eviction of the tenant, but the Bombay High Court reversed it, analysing the facts of the case. The Supreme Court stated that the high court wrongly interfered with the finding of facts by the court below.
Tax benefit for charitable trusts
The Supreme Court has held that a charitable institution established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste will not be eligible for income tax exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. But if such an institution based on religious tenets serves other communities as well, it can avail of the benefit, the court stated in its judgment, Commissioner of IT vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat. The Jamat in this case is a public trust registered under the MP Public Trusts Act.
It applied for registration before the commissioner to avail of the exemption. But it was denied as it was a religious trust. On appeal, the high court stated that it was eligible for the benefit. The appeal of the revenue authorities was dismissed and the Supreme Court explained that certain activities of a trust may contain the elements of both religion and charity. Jamat was based on religious tenets of Koran, but its activities are not exclusively for a particular community. So it would be eligible for tax benefit.
Article referred: http://smartinvestor.business-standard.com/market/Econnews-235293-Econnewsdet-Tenants_stall_Sarfaesi_action.htm#.U1AxlPmSzl9
In a tenancy dispute, the issue whether the landlord genuinely requires his property for his personal use is a question of fact and it should be decided on evidence by the trial court. The high court cannot go into the evidence and take its own decision on questions of facts unless law was involved, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case, Kalpesh Shah vs Manhar Auto Stores.
A lower court had ordered eviction of the tenant, but the Bombay High Court reversed it, analysing the facts of the case. The Supreme Court stated that the high court wrongly interfered with the finding of facts by the court below.
Tax benefit for charitable trusts
The Supreme Court has held that a charitable institution established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste will not be eligible for income tax exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. But if such an institution based on religious tenets serves other communities as well, it can avail of the benefit, the court stated in its judgment, Commissioner of IT vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat. The Jamat in this case is a public trust registered under the MP Public Trusts Act.
It applied for registration before the commissioner to avail of the exemption. But it was denied as it was a religious trust. On appeal, the high court stated that it was eligible for the benefit. The appeal of the revenue authorities was dismissed and the Supreme Court explained that certain activities of a trust may contain the elements of both religion and charity. Jamat was based on religious tenets of Koran, but its activities are not exclusively for a particular community. So it would be eligible for tax benefit.
Article referred: http://smartinvestor.business-standard.com/market/Econnews-235293-Econnewsdet-Tenants_stall_Sarfaesi_action.htm#.U1AxlPmSzl9
Comments
Post a Comment