Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: FILM FEDERATION OF INDIA
1990 P T D 661
1990 P T D 661
[Bombay High Court (India)]
Before S.K Desai and V.S. Kotwal, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
versus
FILM FEDERATION OF INDIA
Income‑tax Reference No. 458 of 1975, decided on 29th September, 1988.
Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Charitable trust‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑Film Federation‑‑‑Objects held by High Court to be of general public utility‑‑‑Subscription from members, interest on securities, interest on deposits, interest on savings bank account and interest on debentures received by the federation is exempt from tax‑‑‑Indian Income‑tax Act, 1961, Ss. 2(15) & 11.
The income of the assessee‑Film Federation from subscriptions from members, interest on securities, interest on deposits, interest on savings bank account and interest on debentures were exempt from tax under section 11(1)(a) of the Indian Income‑tax Act, 1961.
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. C.I.T. (1980) 126 I T R 27 (Bom.) fol.
G.S. Jetley and Manjula Singh for the Commissioner.
R.M. Parikh for the Assessee.
JUDGMENT
S. K. DESAI, J.‑‑The assessee concerned in this reference is the Film Federation of India, Bombay. The reference is at the instance of the Revenue and the following question stands referred to us by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following incomes were exempt from tax under section 11(1)(a) of the Income‑tax Act, 1961:
(1) Subscriptions from members;
(2) Interest on securities;
(3) Interest on deposits;
(4) Interest on savings bank account;
(5) Interest on debentures?"
As far as subscriptions from members are concerned, we have been referred to the decision given by a Division Bench of this High Court in Income- tax Reference No. 38 of 1972 (C.I.T. v. Film Federation of India) decided on September 9, 1981, where this very assessee was concerned. In that reference, the question referred to the Bench was whether the subscriptions received by the assessee‑company for the three years under consideration were liable to tax. On considering the nature of activities carried on by the assessee and applying the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, the question was answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
One of the decisions referred to in the aforesaid decision was Bar Council of Maharashtra v. C.I.T. (1980) 126 ITR 27 (Bom). In this decision, income of various types was under consideration. The nature of the body, viz., the Bar Council, was first considered and ultimately it was held that the income of several distinct categories, some of which are indicated at page 28 of the report, would all be exempt from liability to income‑tax.
In our opinion, no elaborate discussion is required to answer the question referred to us in this reference. The nature of the assessee has already been considered by us and, in our opinion, the several categories of income indicated in the question will not attract income‑tax. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
The parties will, however, bear their own costs of the reference.
Z.S./745/T Reference answered.