The Supreme Court held as under:
1) The objects of trust
providing for activities of religious nature and were restricted to the
specific communities were objects with religious purpose only. However, other
objects would not be purely religious in nature if such objects trace their
source to the Holy Quran and resolve to abide by the path of godliness shown by
Allah;
2) The establishment of Madarsas or institutions to
impart religious education to the masses would qualify as a charitable purpose
under the head of education under the provisions of section 2(15). The Madarsas do not confine themselves to
only dissipation of religious teachings but also contribute to the holistic
education of an individual;
3) Therefore, the
objects of the trust exhibited the dual tenor of religious and charitable
purposes and activities;
4) From the phraseology
in section 13(1)(b), it could be inferred that the Legislature intended to
include only the trusts established for charitable purposes in such provision.
That, however, would not mean that if a trust was a composite one, i.e., one
for both religious and charitable purposes, it would not be covered by clause
(b);
5) What was intended to
be excluded from being eligible for exemption under section 11 was a trust for
charitable purpose which was established for the benefit of any particular
religious community or caste;
6) In the instant case,
the objects of the trust were based on religious tenets under Quran according
to religious faith of Islam. The perusal of the objects and purposes of the
trust would clearly demonstrate that the activities of the trust, though, were
both charitable and religious, yet were not exclusively meant for a particular
religious community;
7) The objects of trust
did not channel the benefits to any community and, thus, would not fall under
the provisions of section 13(1)(b).Thus, assessee was a charitable and
religious trust which did not benefit any specific religious community and,
therefore, it would be eligible to claim exemption under section 11.- CIT v. Dawoodi
Bohara Jamat [2014] 43 taxmann.com 243 (SC)
No comments:
Post a Comment