A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is to be guided by the Act and its own memorandum of association. While registering the society, the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies did not find anything wrong with the memorandum of association or any of its articles to be against the Act. A charitable society can invest unspent money for getting more money to be spent in charity, as there is no bar in the Act and when its memorandum of association has authorized the society to invest its money not immediately required. (Per Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, CJ)
The investment of BRAC of its money not immediately required in BRAC Bank Ltd. is not an activity as envisaged in section 20. It is an investment under its memorandum of association in order to augment its resources for more efficiently achieving the objects for which it was incorporated. So, no amendment of section 20 is necessary. (Per Mainur Reza Chowdhury. J)
BRAC has been registered under the Act with the object to engage itself in charitable purposes and social welfare activities strictly on non-profit basis. By its investment in BRAC Bank, BRAC has gone for purely commercial activities, which is not permitted by its memorandum. In the event of bankruptcy of BRAC Bank the charity money would be lost if not totally but substantially, and the memorandum of BRAC does not contemplate investment of its assets or money where the loss of such investment is probable. Unless an amendment is made to the Act, it is not permissible for societies to go for commercial undertaking. (per Md. Ruhul Amin, J, dissenting)
BRAC v. Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others, 22 BLD (AD) 41.

Charitable society can invest its unspent money for getting more money to be spent in charity and when there is absolutely no bar under the Societies Registration Act and when the Memorandum of Association of a society has authorised the same to invest their money not immediately required the same may be invested. BRAC and others vs Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others 54 DLR (AD) 36.

Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Section 44(4)(b), 2(20)(a), 2(65), 16
Income Tax Act, 1922
Section 60(1)-(a)(3)
Constitution of Bangladesh
Articles 15, 17, 83
Private Universities Act, 1992/ 2010
Societies Registration Act, 1860
Companies Act, 1994
Section 28
The Trust Act, 1882
Private university is a juristic person— The observation of the High Court Division that tax on private universities will increase the education cost of the students is not correct, since income tax is a direct tax payable only when a private university earns income; In case of loss no tax is payable. —However, the writ-petitioner-respondent private universities may not be required paying tax if it enjoys tax exemption under any lawful arrangement. .....Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= North South University, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 63] ....View Full Judgment

Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Sections 44(4)(b), 160
Income Tax Act, 1922
Section 60(1)
Societies Registration Act, 1860
Tax exemption— The appellant university of this Civil Appeal No.74 of 2007 challenged the decision of the High Court Division relating to the Assessment Year 2004-2005, when Clause 1(a)(3) of the said SRO dated 31.12.1980 (as amended by the SRO dated 03.07.2002) was in full force of law. The appellant university of the Civil Appeal No.74 of 2007 asserts that the university is entitled to tax exemption for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 under the prevailing law which is Clause 1(a)(3) of the said SRO dated 31.12.1980 (as amended by the SRO dated 03.07.2002).
Whereas the rest of the Civil Appeal Nos.111-155 of 2021 do not essentially involved whether the respective universities are entitled to exemption under the said Clause 1(a)(3) of the said SRO dated 31.12.1980 (as amended by the SRO dated 03.07.2002). In the Civil Appeal Nos.111-155 of 2021, the respective universities challenged the authority of the Government to revoke the said exemption under Clause 1(a)(3) of the said SRO dated 31.12.1980 (as amended by the SRO dated 03.07.2002). The said exemption under Clause 1(a)(3) of the said SRO dated 31.12.1980 (as amended by the SRO dated 03.07.2002) was revoked or rescinded or abolished by dint of the SRO No.156-Ain/Income Tax/2007 dated 28.06.2007 and the respective university also challenged the authority of the Government exempting the private universities from tax to the tune of 10% by way of reducing the liability to pay tax to the tune of 15% under the SRO No.158-Ain/Income Tax/2007 dated 28.06.2007. Moreover, the tax assessment years involved in the said Civil Appeal Nos.111-155 of 2021 are all related to tax assessment years when the said Clause 1(a)(3) of the said SRO dated 31.12.1980 (as amended by the SRO dated 03.07.2002) was not in force. Hence, the points of law as well as facts of instant Civil Appeal No.74 of 2007 are distinguishable and different from Civil Appeal Nos.111-155 of 2021. .....East West University, Dhaka =VS= The Commissioner of Taxes, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 115] ....View Full Judgment