1.  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs A Y BROADCAST FOUNDATION, ITA No. 1486 of 2009, Dated: 22nd March 2011, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Whether the activities of telecasting and broadcasting of TV and Radio programmes can also be said to be for advancement of general public utility, and thus qualify for registration as a charitable company.

The assessee is a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act and so much so, there is no provision for declaration of dividend to the members of the Company. What is stated in one of the object clauses is that the entire income of the Company will be utilized for the purpose for which it is formed i.e. to carry on the activities stated in the main clause, which is production of television and radio programmes for the purpose of telecasting and broadcasting through assessee's own network or through network hired by them. Generally, the activities refereed to therein i.e. production of television and radio programmes and telecasting and broadcasting of the same are commercial activities. Further the object clause provided for the assessee to act as an agent, broker, liasioner, introducer etc., which are purely commercial activities intended to make profit;

Since the assessee is not holding any business in charity or distributing any surplus for charitable purposes, the question to be considered is whether the carrying on of the activities referred to in the object clause by itself constitute advancement of any object of general public utility within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Act. If the assessee's contention that telecasting and broadcasting of various television and radio programmes will help spiritual and social development is accepted, then probably every television company and radio company whether it is engaged in business or not is entitled to registration as a charitable institution because every programme has some value for human development either social or spiritual; after going through the object clause, the activities of the assessee stated above i.e. undertaking to telecast and broadcast programmes and to act as an agent, broker, liasioner etc. will not make the object clause charitable. These are purely commercial activities not exclusively intended for advancement of any object of general public utility.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITA No. 249/H/2008, Assessment Year 2004-2005, Dated: 31st March 2011, ITAT HYDERABAD

Whether book profits is to be computed with reference to each assessment year and whether profits earned during the period of sickness and available for setting off under normal provisions of Income Tax are to be excluded from the ambit of book profit of non-sick years.

The book profit of the assessee is to be computed with reference to each assessment year and the provisions of section 115JA(2)(vii) cannot be applied for assessment year 2000-01 after the assessee went out of the sickness; the findings of the CIT(A) are justified. It is very much clear that the period has been prescribed in the Act itself and that period is the time frame of the previous year in which the company has become a sick industrial undertaking to the end of the AY in which the company recovers from sickness or in other words, the net worth of such company becomes equal to or exceeds the accumulated losses;the purpose of introduction of section 115JA/JB is to bring certain zero tax payment companies into tax net.

The legislative expedience adopted to achieve this object requires to be given effect on its own language. The section 115JA/JB opens with the non-obstante clause and directs that when the total income of the assessee computed under the Act in any previous year is less than the 30% of its book profit, the total income of such assessee chargeable to tax for the relevant previous year shall be deemed to be amount required to 30% of such book profit. Further, the provisions of section provide to make certain adjustments. The one of the adjustments prescribed under this provision is under section 115JA(2)(vii)/JB (2)(vii). This provision is very clear and unambiguous. As long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible.

(Please click here for judgment)