- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Victoria Technical Institute v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Additional), Madras And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arose from a certificate granted against a common judgment dated April 12, 1978 of the Madras High Court in T.C. Nos. 383 of 1984 and 780-789 of 1976 (CIT, Addl. v. Victoria Technical Institute, 120 ITR 358). The assessee, Victoria Technical Institute, claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1971-72 in respect of income derived from its “General Fund” and “South Indian Women Workers Executive Committee Fund.” The High Court held that the Institute’s objects were linked with an activity for profit and therefore did not constitute a “charitable purpose” under Section 2(15). The present Supreme Court proceeding reviews that determination.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the income derived by the assessee from its General Fund and South Indian Women Workers Executive Committee Fund is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1971-72.
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income from the purchase and sale of handicrafts, without setting up educational institutions or training centres for advancement of studies, constitutes a “charitable purpose” qualifying for exemption.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments (Assessee)
- The Institute’s objectives are inherently charitable; the inclusion of object (f) (“buying and selling or selling on commission the articles produced by handicraftsmen or otherwise”) does not negate its charitable character.
- The activity of buying and selling handicrafts is carried out only in furtherance of the primary charitable purpose and therefore should not affect the exemption under Section 11.
Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)
- Whether the Institute’s activities qualify as charitable must depend on the scale or magnitude of its buying and selling operations.
- The present case is distinguishable from precedents because the commercial element may dominate the overall purpose, thereby disqualifying the exemption.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT (1976) 1 SCC 324 | If advancement of general public utility is linked with an activity for profit, the purpose ceases to be charitable. | Relied upon by the High Court; Supreme Court noted it had since been explained in Surat Art Silk. |
| CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 2 SCC 31 | The words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit” qualify only the fourth category (“object of general public utility”) and incidental profit-making does not defeat charitable purpose. | Held to squarely govern the instant case; provided the legal basis for treating the Institute’s objects as charitable despite trading activities. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Institute’s objects must be examined in light of Surat Art Silk, which clarified that incidental profit-making does not automatically defeat a charitable purpose focused on general public utility. The Court observed:
- Object (f) of buying and selling handicrafts is merely ancillary to the primary aim of promoting handicrafts and, by extension, public utility.
- There was “nothing to show” that the trading function was pursued independently of or inconsistently with the Institute’s charitable purpose.
- Under Surat Art Silk, the critical inquiry is whether the purpose itself involves carrying on an activity for profit; how funds are raised is immaterial when the main purpose remains charitable.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that both referred questions had to be answered in favour of the assessee.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Allowed. The questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; no order as to costs.
Implications: The decision reaffirms the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Surat Art Silk that incidental trading does not vitiate a charitable purpose under Section 2(15). It provides further clarity that institutions advancing objects of general public utility can engage in profit-making activities, provided such activities remain subordinate to the primary charitable objective.
Order
1. This appeal by certificate is from the judgment and order of the Madras High Court in T.C Nos. 383 of 1984 and 780-789 of 1976, since reported in CIT, Addl. v. Victoria Technical Institute (1979) 120 ITR 358, (1979) 10 CTR 168 (Mad). The following two questions of law were referred for the opinion of the High Court:
“1. Whether the income derived by the assessee from its General Fund and South Indian Women Workers Executive Committee Fund is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1971-1972?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the purchase and sale of handicrafts, without setting up educational institutions or training centres for advancement of studies would constitute charitable purpose and would, as such, qualify for exemption?”
2. By a common judgment dated April 12, 1978 the Madras High Court held that the advancement of the object of general public utility was linked or connected with an activity for profit and that the object of the assessee was not a “charitable purpose” within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act. In arriving at that judgment the High Court mainly relied on a decision of this Court in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT (1976) 1 SCC 324, AIR 1976 SC 348, (1975) 101 ITR 796 which has subsequently been explained by this Court in CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 2 SCC 31, AIR 1980 SC 387, (1980) 121 ITR 1.
3. It is contended for the appellants that the objects of the assessee Victoria Technical Institute are “charitable purposes” and the mere fact that under objects sub-clause (f) ‘buying and selling or selling on commission the articles produced by handicraftsmen or otherwise’ will not disentitle the assessee from the exemption. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that it would depend on the scale or magnitude of such operation of buying and selling or selling on commission articles and therefore, this case is distinguishable. But there is nothing to show that this function is otherwise than in carrying out of the primary purpose. In CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 2 SCC 31, AIR 1980 SC 387, (1980) 121 ITR 1, it has been held that the words “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit” qualify or govern only the last head of charitable purpose and not the earlier three heads. Where, therefore, the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, the requirement of the definition of “charitable purpose” would be fully satisfied, even if an activity for profit is carried on in the course of the actual carrying out of the primary purpose of the trust or institution. When the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object or general public utility and not its accomplishment or carrying out which must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. So long as the purpose does not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit, the requirement of the definition would be met and it is immaterial how the monies for achieving or implementing such purpose are found, whether by carrying on an activity for profit or not. The instant case is accordingly found to be squarely covered by the decision in CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 2 SCC 31, AIR 1980 SC 387, (1980) 121 ITR 1 and the questions have to be, and are, answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
4. These appeals are accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert