Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0272: Difference between revisions
('understood as related to section of the public, cross section of the public where with reference to that cross section adm...' താൾ സൃഷ്ടിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
understood as related to section of the public, cross section of the public where with reference to that cross section admission is free. In understanding the application of the provision of the section the court cannot loose sight of the fact that it is an educational process administered to nuns for the purpose of future nunary. The entire institution and the buildings located in the compound in question would have to be understood as such in the context of the spirit of understanding of the above provisions. – St. Liobha Bhavan v. Kodakara Panchayat – 1996 (1) KLT 304. Chakravarthy Hostel V. Municipal Commissioner 1995 (2) KLT 588 - Relied on.] | understood as related to section of the public, cross section of the public where with reference to that cross section admission is free. In understanding the application of the provision of the section the court cannot loose sight of the fact that it is an educational process administered to nuns for the purpose of future nunary. The entire institution and the buildings located in the compound in question would have to be understood as such in the context of the spirit of understanding of the above provisions. – St. Liobha Bhavan v. Kodakara Panchayat – 1996 (1) KLT 304. Chakravarthy Hostel V. Municipal Commissioner 1995 (2) KLT 588 - Relied on.] | ||
Hostels attached to dispensaries and hospitals are not exempted – The language employed in the explanation make it clear that a building used as hostel attached to schools and colleges also is exempted from tax. This connection however, has not been extended to hostels attached to dispensaries and hospitals. - Superior, Asha Bhavan v. State of Kerala – 1991 (1) KLT 244. | Hostels attached to dispensaries and hospitals are not exempted – The language employed in the explanation make it clear that a building used as hostel attached to schools and colleges also is exempted from tax. This connection however, has not been extended to hostels attached to dispensaries and hospitals. - Superior, Asha Bhavan v. State of Kerala – 1991 (1) KLT 244. | ||
72(1) Explanation '''corresponding to S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 19941-''' Is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, Art. 14 – It is for the legislature or the taxing authority to determine the taxing policy. Granting of exemption from tax is part of the taxing policy. Courts cannot review the wisdom or expediency of a tax because the court is unconcerned with the policy of legislation so long as the same is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. However, where there is transgression of the legislative power in levying the tax the same will be corrected by the Judiciary and not otherwise, although taxes may be and often are oppressive, unjust and perhaps may be said to be unnecessary. But this would not constitute the reason for Judicial interference. The Explanation is not discriminatory or violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. - Superior, Asha Bhavan v. State of Kerala - 1991 (1) KLT 244. | |||
'''72(1)(b) [corresponding to S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]–''' Auditorium attached to a temple used for marriage and drama - Does not come under exemption in S.72(1)(b) - It is common ground that the auditorium is attached to the place of public worship. It is not one used for residential purpose. It is one used for "other purposes". If those "other purposes" are connected with "public worship" then and then alone can the building be exempted from tax liability. So, if the auditorium is to be exempted from tax liability, that should have been put to "other purposes" connected with the public worship. The said building cannot come within the purview of sub-clause (b) of Clause 1 of 9.72 of the Act and hence is not to be exempted from the tax liability under S.66 of the Act. - Secretary, Ochira Temple Administration Board v. State of Kerala & Others - 1987 (2) KLT 599. | |||
'''72(1)(c) (corresponding to S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994)- ''' Sathram belonging to temple rented out to devotees – Matters to be considered in granting exemption – Exemption under S.11(1)(c) of Income Tax, Act, 1961 is a relevant factor – The exemption from the Income Tax Act is a relevant matter to be taken note in granting the exemption. But that fact by itself may not exempt all buildings belonging to the petitioner from liability as per S.72 of the Act. For the Sathram building to be exempted from the tax liability the petitioner should establish that the income derived from them by way of rent is being used exclusively for charitable purpose. If the predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not to earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity. - Secretary, Ochira Temple Administration Board v. State of Kerala & Others - 1987 (2) KLT 599. | |||
'''72(1)(d) [corresponding to S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]–''' Building used as residence for students who undergo religious and college studies - Qualifies for exemption - The user is what is important and not the statutory recognition of the buildings as an educational institution. If, as a matter of fact, the building is dominantly used for educational purposes, it qualifies for exemption under S.72(1)(d). - Sr. Mariatta v. State - 1981 KLT 80. | |||
Tenant running school entitled to exemption – What matters is the user of the building; if it is needed for educational purposes, it is eligible for exemption. The view that user by the owner of the building is alone exempted, and not user by a tenant, is not supported by the language of the statute. - Mathew v. Executive Officer – 1984 KLT 310. | Tenant running school entitled to exemption – What matters is the user of the building; if it is needed for educational purposes, it is eligible for exemption. The view that user by the owner of the building is alone exempted, and not user by a tenant, is not supported by the language of the statute. - Mathew v. Executive Officer – 1984 KLT 310. | ||
Charitable purpose – Exemption to hospitals claiming to be charitable institutions – From the mere fact that money is collected from patients a hospitals which is otherwise charitable, cannot cease to be charitable. Eleemosynary is not an essential element for a charitable institution. - Good Shephered Hospital Society v. Executive Officer – 1973 KLT 348. | Charitable purpose – Exemption to hospitals claiming to be charitable institutions – From the mere fact that money is collected from patients a hospitals which is otherwise charitable, cannot cease to be charitable. Eleemosynary is not an essential element for a charitable institution. - Good Shephered Hospital Society v. Executive Officer – 1973 KLT 348. | ||
{{create}} | {{create}} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 25 January 2019
understood as related to section of the public, cross section of the public where with reference to that cross section admission is free. In understanding the application of the provision of the section the court cannot loose sight of the fact that it is an educational process administered to nuns for the purpose of future nunary. The entire institution and the buildings located in the compound in question would have to be understood as such in the context of the spirit of understanding of the above provisions. – St. Liobha Bhavan v. Kodakara Panchayat – 1996 (1) KLT 304. Chakravarthy Hostel V. Municipal Commissioner 1995 (2) KLT 588 - Relied on.]
Hostels attached to dispensaries and hospitals are not exempted – The language employed in the explanation make it clear that a building used as hostel attached to schools and colleges also is exempted from tax. This connection however, has not been extended to hostels attached to dispensaries and hospitals. - Superior, Asha Bhavan v. State of Kerala – 1991 (1) KLT 244.
72(1) Explanation corresponding to S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 19941- Is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, Art. 14 – It is for the legislature or the taxing authority to determine the taxing policy. Granting of exemption from tax is part of the taxing policy. Courts cannot review the wisdom or expediency of a tax because the court is unconcerned with the policy of legislation so long as the same is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. However, where there is transgression of the legislative power in levying the tax the same will be corrected by the Judiciary and not otherwise, although taxes may be and often are oppressive, unjust and perhaps may be said to be unnecessary. But this would not constitute the reason for Judicial interference. The Explanation is not discriminatory or violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. - Superior, Asha Bhavan v. State of Kerala - 1991 (1) KLT 244.
72(1)(b) [corresponding to S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]– Auditorium attached to a temple used for marriage and drama - Does not come under exemption in S.72(1)(b) - It is common ground that the auditorium is attached to the place of public worship. It is not one used for residential purpose. It is one used for "other purposes". If those "other purposes" are connected with "public worship" then and then alone can the building be exempted from tax liability. So, if the auditorium is to be exempted from tax liability, that should have been put to "other purposes" connected with the public worship. The said building cannot come within the purview of sub-clause (b) of Clause 1 of 9.72 of the Act and hence is not to be exempted from the tax liability under S.66 of the Act. - Secretary, Ochira Temple Administration Board v. State of Kerala & Others - 1987 (2) KLT 599.
72(1)(c) (corresponding to S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994)- Sathram belonging to temple rented out to devotees – Matters to be considered in granting exemption – Exemption under S.11(1)(c) of Income Tax, Act, 1961 is a relevant factor – The exemption from the Income Tax Act is a relevant matter to be taken note in granting the exemption. But that fact by itself may not exempt all buildings belonging to the petitioner from liability as per S.72 of the Act. For the Sathram building to be exempted from the tax liability the petitioner should establish that the income derived from them by way of rent is being used exclusively for charitable purpose. If the predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not to earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity. - Secretary, Ochira Temple Administration Board v. State of Kerala & Others - 1987 (2) KLT 599.
72(1)(d) [corresponding to S.207 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]– Building used as residence for students who undergo religious and college studies - Qualifies for exemption - The user is what is important and not the statutory recognition of the buildings as an educational institution. If, as a matter of fact, the building is dominantly used for educational purposes, it qualifies for exemption under S.72(1)(d). - Sr. Mariatta v. State - 1981 KLT 80. Tenant running school entitled to exemption – What matters is the user of the building; if it is needed for educational purposes, it is eligible for exemption. The view that user by the owner of the building is alone exempted, and not user by a tenant, is not supported by the language of the statute. - Mathew v. Executive Officer – 1984 KLT 310.
Charitable purpose – Exemption to hospitals claiming to be charitable institutions – From the mere fact that money is collected from patients a hospitals which is otherwise charitable, cannot cease to be charitable. Eleemosynary is not an essential element for a charitable institution. - Good Shephered Hospital Society v. Executive Officer – 1973 KLT 348.
|
ഈ താൾ 2018 -ലെ പഞ്ചായത്ത് റെപ്പോ നിർമ്മാണം യജ്ഞത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമായി സൃഷ്ടിച്ചതാണ്. |