{"id":78396,"date":"1986-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986"},"modified":"2017-01-01T11:49:36","modified_gmt":"2017-01-01T06:19:36","slug":"risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986","title":{"rendered":"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Delhi<\/div>\n
Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 16 ITD 486 Delhi<\/div>\n
Bench: S Grover<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
S. Grover, Judicial Member<\/p>\n
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order dated 2-2-1985
\npassed by the Commissioner, Delhi IV, New Delhi under Section 263(1) of
\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in respect of the assessment year
\n1980-81. The primary contention is against the finding and decision
\nunder the revisionary powers that the assessee foundation did not fall
\nwithin the ambit of charitable purposes, as defined in Section 2(75) of the
\nAct and, therefore, was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the
\nAct as a charitable institution. The action of the learned Commissioner
\nin computing the business income at Rs. 1,08,973 is also challenged in
\nthe alternative, and denial of depreciation amounting to Rs. 17,398 is
\nfurther contested.\n<\/p>\n
2. In the assessment order dated 23-3-1983 framed under Section 143(3)
\nof the Act by the ITO, Trust Circle V, New Delhi the facts stated are that the asscssee-society was formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at registration No. S\/7466 of 1975 on 21-1-1975 by the Registrar of Societies, Delhi. It was registered (under Section 12A of the Act), registration given being DLI (C) i-539 by the Commissioner Delhi-II, New Delhi vide his office No. CIT\/II\/TE (82)\/75\/8062 dated 19-9-1975. Exemption in respect of grants and other receipts was granted under Section 80G of the Act up to 31-3-1977 by the said Commissioner vide his letter No. CIT-II\/TE(82)\/75\/1836 dated 19-11-1976.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tReturn showing income of Rs. 2,060 was furnished on 13-6-1980
\nagainst which assessment came to be framed at Rs. 5,060 because the
\nassessee had set apart a sum of Rs. 93,132 under Section 11(1) (a) leaving
\na surplus of Rs. 5,062 and its claimed deduction of Rs. 3,000 under
\nSection SOL of the Act was not allowed, being not admissible in the case
\nof an AOP. The following portion of the assessment, I am noticing below
\nto give the facts of this year, as also to project the pattern of receipts and
\nthe sources thereof, as also the nature of expenses from the inception of
\nthe foundation :\n<\/p>\n
 The assessee contributes interest-free loan to new entrepreneurs whose projects are financed by any of the All India Financial Institutions, like Industrial Finance Corporation of India; Industrial Development Bank of India; Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of Indian Ltd., etc. During the year under consideration the assessee derived income of Rs. 3,72,530 which consisted of service charges of Rs. 66,359, application fees of Rs. 32,000, legal charges of Rs. 8,000, interest of Rs. 1,00,903, I.F.C.I, grant of Rs. 1,65,093 and miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 175. The asssessee had incurred expenses and applied income to charitable purposes aggregating to Rs. 2,74,336.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe Commissioner, however, gave a notice dated 17-5-1984 under
\nsection 263(1) intimating that he intended to withdraw exemption under
\nSection 11. The assessee resisted invoking of the provision under Section
\n263 by filing a reply dated 4-7-1984, along with which a detailed note of
\n22 pages was submitted. The learned Commissioner, however, passed
\nthe impugned order by which he withdrew the exemption and computed
\ntaxable income at Rs. 1,08,973 by holding as follows :\n<\/p>\n
(a) that the objects of the foundation did not conform to the requirements
\nof the definition of charitable purpose in Section 2(15), as such objects
\nwere not of general public utility; and<\/p>\n
(b) that the foundation was involved in activity of profit and the services
\nwere being rendered and fee being charged from various entrepreneurs for
\nrendering services.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tI heard Shri O.P. Vaish, the advocate for the appellant, at length and
\nwas assisted by Shri S.K. Bansal for the revenue. The appellant founda
\ntion (‘RCF’ or ‘foundation’) has been sponsored by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India — IFCI — which is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and constituted by an Act of the Parliament.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tRCF was inaugurated on 10-3-1975 by the then Minister of Industries
\nand Civil Supplies of the Central Government. According to the
\nMemorandum of Association and the rules, a copy of which has been filed,
\nits principal objects can be spelt out below :\n<\/p>\n
(i) To help, aid, assist, finance, undertake and organise … , assistance to new entrepreneurs, technologists and professionals for promoting industrial projects by giving necessary guidance and financial assistance to enable them to subscribe to promoters’ equity of projects eligible for financial assistance from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India and other financial institutions and bodies corporate on such terms and conditions as may be decided upon by the foundation from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) To render any assistance that may be ancillary or incidental to the aforesaid purposes, including giving of loans and advances free of interest or at nominal rate of interest, etc.<\/p>\n
7. RCF funds are stipulated to mainly consist, inter alia, (i) loans from
\nthe IFCI, with or without interest, out of the Benevolent Reserve Fund
\nestablished under Section 32B of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act,
\n1948; (ii) Loans and grants made available by the IFCI out of interest
\ndifferential funds arising out of lines of credit in D.M. to the IFCI from
\nthe Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau of West Germany and allocated to
\nthe IFCI by the Government of India; (ii) All fees, service charges,
\ninterest and other charges received by the foundation; and (iv) All dona
\ntions, gifts and other monies received by the foundation in any other
\nmanner or from any other source.\n<\/p>\n
8. The foundation income and property is statutorily stipulated to be
\napplied solely towards the promotion of its objects and no portion thereof
\ncan be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend, gift,
\ndivision, bonus or otherwise by way of profit to its members.\n<\/p>\n
9. The nature and control of the management of the foundation can be
\nunderstood by stating that it is managed by the board of trustees,
\nconsisting of besides, its chairman, two directors of the Board and the
\nexecutive director of the IFCI as ex-officio member and two persons
\nnominated by the board of IFCI to represent industry, finance, banking
\nand technical institutions, bodies of undertakings, two persons nominated
\nby the said board to represent All India Financial institutions and one
\nrepresentative nominated by the Chairman of IFCI on behalf of
\nKreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau of Frankfurt (KFW).\n<\/p>\n
10.\tAgainst the above background the learned Commissioner inferred
\nthat the foundation was established to provide help, aid, finance and
\norganise the advancement and promotion of industry, trade and commerce, and such object was to be achieved by providing guidance and financial assistance to new entrepreneurs, technologists and professionals. In my considered opinion, however, it is the other way. The primary object is to help new entrepreneurs by giving interest-free loans and in the process the industry gets impetus for advancement. Therefore, the basic approach of the learned Commissioner made all the differences.\n<\/p>\n
11. For the assessee, a statement of income and expenditure loan and disbursement from its inception to 31-12-1984 has been filed and is at page 159 of the paper book, from where I notice that for the said period advances by way of risk capital to the entrepreneurs amounted to Rs. 349.57 lakhs. The total recovery on account of all charges over the said period has been Rs. 18.66 lakhs only. The administrative cost of the foundation for the said period Rs. 36.36 lakhs. The deficit has been made partly out of the grants received from the IFCI and partly from investing the non-refundable grants and interest-free loans in short-term deposits until disbursement. The other heads of receipts and expenditure, which I like to notice, are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     Rs.<\/p>\n
\n1. Receipts from borrower on \n   account of SC, CSC, etc.                                      14.17 lakhs\n\n2. Receipts on account of application \n   fees and legal charges.                                        4.49 lakhs\n\n3. Miscellaneous income (Interest on STD, etc.)                   28.43 lakhs\n                                                                                   \n4. Expenditure grant recovered from IFCI                          9.92 lakhs\n\n5. Total income (1+2+3+4)                                         7.01 lakhs.\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
12. Shri S.K. Bansal, the departmental representative submitted that
\nkeeping in view the findings of the Commissioner that foundation was
\ncarrying on activities for profit which he emphasised was positive, the
\nassessee was rightly denied exemption under Section 11 read with section
\n2(15). Next Shri Bansal referred me to a decision of the Tribunal in the
\ncase of Samaj Kalyan Parishad v. ITO [1984] 9 1TD 799 (Delhi) and
\ncontended that the dominant and ancillary objects must be separated and
\nin such view of the matter also the assessee could not be held to be a
\ncharitable institution.\n<\/p>\n
13. For the assessee Shri Vaish submitted that if the revenue’s representa
\ntive’s argument was to be accepted, it would follow that the Commissioner’s
\ninferences should be taken as positive findings, which could not be a
\ncorrect approach. As far as Samaj Kalyan Parishad’s case (supra), Mr.
\nVaish submitted that it was simply not applicable to the facts, because it
\nwas held in that case that tai Ioring establishment was run on commercial
\nlines and that the assessee had derived substantial profit from such activity. There was further finding in that case by the Tribunal that income derived from a given business would be exempt only when such business is carried on in the course of actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the trust, which come within the ambit of Section 2(15) and such was not the situation in the said case.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe necessary facts have been given and the object and working of
\nthe foundation has also been projected. Before proceeding further the
\ndefinition of the words’charitable purpose’ may be noticed, given under
\nSection 2(75) :\n<\/p>\n
 (15) ‘charitable purpose’ includes relief of poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility;\n<\/p>\n
15. I have recorded the contentions of the parties and have referred to
\nthe decision in Samaj Kalyan Parishad’s case (supra) and accept the
\nappellant-advocate’s contention that the decision in that case went
\nagainst the assessee because of the finding that profit activity was not
\nbeing carried to further the cause of the primary object. The cited
\nTribunal decision is, therefore, not applicable.\n<\/p>\n
16. I have given the necessary datas with regard to advancing of loans
\nand the related receipts and expenses with a purpose to show that activity
\nof profit can be only if activity is for profit. The Hon’ble Supreme.\n<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association
\n[1980] 121 ITR 1 has laid down the golden principle, which is the law
\nof the land, that the true meaning of the last 10 words in Section 2(15),
\n‘not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit’, is that when
\nthe purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object
\nof general public utility, it is that object of general public utility
\nand not its accomplishment or carrying out which must not involve
\nthe carrying on of any activity for profit. So long as the purpose
\ndoes not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit, the requirement
\nof the definition would be met and it is immaterial how the monies for
\nachieving or implementing such purpose are found, whether by carrying
\non an activity for profit or not<\/p>\n
17. The said principle has not been diluted but has been reaffirmed by
\nthe later judgment in the case of CIT v. Federation of Indian Chambers of
\nCommerce & Industry [1981] 130 ITR 186 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
18. Activity of profit should either be stipulated or profits should arise.
\nConsidering the terms of advancing loans, which were free of interest and
\nkeeping in view the actual facts prevailing, there was no question of mak
\ning any profit at all. And in fact, not only no profits are made but there is
\nno likelihood of such event even in foreseeable future. When I observe
\nthis I should not be understood to say that because of non-earning of
\nprofit I am taking the view that dominant purpose of the foundation is as contemplated in the last 10 words of Clause (15) of Section 2. According to me, there has been no activity for profit at all.\n<\/p>\n
19. As far as the learned Commissioner’s approach that there was an
\nactivity for profit by the foundation, the same is held to be erroneous on
\nthe face of it because : (a) the loans are advanced without interest; (b) no
\nsecurities are taken for the advance, except pledging of shares; (c) the
\nservice charge of 1 per cent cannot possibly make any significant part even
\nof the administrative cost and this I have projected by the statistics
\nreproduced in this order; (d) the contingent service charge by way of one-
\nfourth of dividend when paid by the promoted company on the equity
\nshares acquired out of the loan from the foundation in its very nature
\nindicates recovery contingent upon the project yielding any profit. The
\n10 per cent terminal service charge is recoverable either through adjust
\nment against the contingent service charge or at the end of the period of
\nrepayment of loan. Such recovery thereof was, therefore, also dependent
\non the successful implementation of the project and the due recovery of
\nthe loan.\n<\/p>\n
20. The most fundamental point is that no one proposing to take up any
\nactivity for profit would venture to take up the activity that the foundation
\nis involved in. In the very nature of the working of the foundation, the
\nquestion of any profit from the activity does not arise at all.\n<\/p>\n
21. Therefore, holding that the foundation is engaged in an object of
\ngeneral public utility and its activities do not involve the carrying on of an
\nactivity for profit, I hold that the basis of assessment under Section 143(3)
\nin respect of the assessment year under question was correct and the
\nlearned Commissioner wrongly and unjustifiably assumed jurisdiction
\nunder Section 263 for withdrawing the exemption under Section 11. I
\naccordingly vacate the Commissioner’s order and restore the assessment.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tIn the result, the appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Delhi Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1986 16 ITD 486 Delhi Bench: S Grover ORDER S. Grover, Judicial Member 1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order dated 2-2-1985 passed by the Commissioner, Delhi IV, New Delhi under Section 263(1) of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nRisk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1986-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-01T06:19:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-01T06:19:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986\"},\"wordCount\":2258,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986\",\"name\":\"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-01T06:19:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-01T06:19:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986","datePublished":"1986-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-01T06:19:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986"},"wordCount":2258,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986","name":"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-01T06:19:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/risk-capital-foundation-vs-income-tax-officer-on-15-january-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Risk Capital Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1986"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78396","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78396"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78396\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}