Sections 2 and 10
|
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.
|
BRAC v. Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others, |
22 BLD (AD) 41 |
Section 20
|
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.
|
BRAC and others vs Professor Mozaffar Ahmed and others |
54 DLR (AD) 36 |
Private university is a juristic person—
|
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
|
Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh =VS= North South University |
16 LM (AD) 63 |
Tax exemption
|
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
|
East West University, Dhaka =VS= The Commissioner of Taxes |
16 LM (AD) 115 |