VENKATARAMIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE questions of law which arises for consideration in these cases are common. We; therefore, propose to dispose of these two cases by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE assessee in ITRC. 57 of 1974 is Sri Aroor Bros Charitable Trust, mangalore and the assessee in ITRC. 58 of 1974 is Sri A. R. Mohan Rao charitable Trust, Mangalore. The assessees were treated by the Income- tax Dept as Charitable Trusts entitled to the benefit of exemption under sec. 11 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), till the assessment year 1968-69. But in the year 1969-70, the Income-Tax officer took the view that as there was no charitable trust in existence; they were not entitled to the exemption contemplated under Sec. 11. The assessees preferred appeals before the Appellate Asst Commr of Incometax. He reversed the decision of the Income-Tax Officer and held that they were charitable trusts entitled to the benefit of Sec. 11. The Dept took up the matter in appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, bangalore Bench. The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Thereafter, at the instance of the Dept, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law to this Court :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the objects of the assessee-trust constitute ' charitable purposes' within the the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?" ( 3 ) THE Trust deeds of the two Trusts in question are before us. Cl. 4 in each of those deeds sets out the objects of the Trust in question. It reads :"4. The objects of the Trust are the following and the benefits from the Trust shall be open to all persons irrespective of caste, community or religion- (a) Awarding the scholarships to deserving students. The scholarships may be given by way of loan or out-right gratuity not returnable and j or partly by way of loan and partly by way of gift or gratuity or in any other manner appropriate to the situation. (b) To pay for or advance for medical relief, expenses of marriage and other appropriate occasions in deserving cases. © To create or manage endowments for prizes and scholarships in Schools and Colleges. (b) To pay for or advance for medical relief, expenses of marriage and other appropriate occasions in deserving cases. © To create or manage endowments for prizes and scholarships in Schools and Colleges. (d) To establish and run schools, destitute homes, hospitals, sanatoriums, libraries, art galleries, maternity and child welfare centres, family planning and other clinics, rural or urban medical relief services, etc. (e) To contribute by way of donation or to advance moneys for the purpose of charitable, religious, education and cultural activities. (f) To make contributions for renovation of any historical monuments of common interests or religious or cultural institutions. (g) To construct-buildings for schools, hostels, sanatoriums, etc, and donate them to Govt, quasi-Govt institutions or public bodies or run them under the management of the Trust. (h) To create endowments for doing reasearch work in all banches of science and learning. " ( 4 ) CLAUSE 8 in each of the deeds reads"8. As it is the desire of the Author of the Trust that Trusttees shall endeavour to augment) the Trust fund, the Trustees are hereby empowered to enter into partnership with any person or persons and also to engage in all such trades or business as agents or otherwise as they-deem proper. " ( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the Dept that since clause-8 authorises the Trusts in question to carry on trade or business with a view to making profit, it cannot be said that the cases come within the ambit of the definition of the expression 'charitable purpose' found in clause (15) df Sec. 2? Of the Act and therefore, the assessees cannot claim the benefit of Sec. 11. Section 2 (15) reads :" Charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit. " ( 6 ) IT is not disputed before us that the objects of the Trusts in question are those falling within the first three categories referred to in Sec. 2 (15) of the Act, namely, relief of the poor, education and "medical relief. At any rate it is not contended that the moneys of the trusts are being spent on any activity other than relief of the poor, education or medical relief. At any rate it is not contended that the moneys of the trusts are being spent on any activity other than relief of the poor, education or medical relief. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that the objects mentioned in the trust deeds do not fall within the fourth category, namely, 'any other object of general public utility'. The only question which is canvassed before us by the Dept is that the clause 'not involving the carrying on- of any activity for profit' appearing in Sec. 2 (15) qualifies all the activities falling under any of the four categories mentioned in clause-2 (15) viz, relief of the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility, and would not apply to the last category viz, 'advancement of any other object of general public utility'. In Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana trust v. Commr of Income-Tax ( (1975) 101 ITR. 234 SC.) Khanna and Gupta, JJ. Left the above question open with the following observations :"it is, in our opinion, not necessary to express an opinion in this case on the question as to whether the words 'not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit' qualify the fourth object viz, the advancement of any other object of general public utility or whether they also qualify the other 3 objects of relief of the poor, education, and medical relief, because we are of the view that the object of the appellant-trust was not education but any other object of general public utility. " ( 7 ) BEG, J (as he then was) in his concurring judgment in that case however made some observations which implied that the last clause in Sec. 2, (15) qualified only the fourth object and not the first three. But the above question directly arose for decision before this Court in addl Commr of Income-Tax, Mysore v. ALN. Rao Charitable Trust ( (1976) 102 ITR. 474. ). The object clause of the trust in that case was identical with the object clauses in these ceases and clause-8 of the trust deed in that case was. Similar to clause-8 in these cases. Rao Charitable Trust ( (1976) 102 ITR. 474. ). The object clause of the trust in that case was identical with the object clauses in these ceases and clause-8 of the trust deed in that case was. Similar to clause-8 in these cases. In that case a Divn Bench of this Court which included one of us (Srinivasa lyengar, J) held that the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" appearing in S. 2 (15) qualified only the fourth object viz, 'any other object of general public utility' and did not 'control the other three objects namely 'relief of the' poor, education and medical relief. In view of the above conclusion reached by the Divn Bench it was held that the assessee in that ca,se was a charitable trust entitled to relief under Sec. 11. Against that judgment the Dept filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1349 of 1977 and that was rejected by the Supreme Court by its order dt. 27th April, 1977. ( 8 ) SRI S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy, learned Counsel for the Dept, however, argued, depending upon some of the observations made by the Supreme court in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Commr of Income-Tax, WB ( (1975) 101 ITR. 796 SC.) (decided on September 17, 1975) that the decision of this Court in the case of aln. Rao Charitable Trust (2) required to be reconsidered. We do not think that the decision in Indian Chamber of Commerce's case (3) has in any way unsettled the view taken by this Court. In the case of ALN. Rao charitable Trust (2) the object clause was similar to the object-clauses in these two castes. The objects of the Indian Chamber of Commerce as can be seen from the facts narrated in the decision were those falling under the fourth category, namely, advancement of any other object of general public utility. The Supreme Court had occasion to notice and consider the effect of the decision in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce (3) in a subsequent case viz. Commr of I. T. , Kerala v. Dharmodayan and co (AIR. 1977 SC. 2211 ). The Supreme Court had occasion to notice and consider the effect of the decision in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce (3) in a subsequent case viz. Commr of I. T. , Kerala v. Dharmodayan and co (AIR. 1977 SC. 2211 ). In the latter case, the Supreme Court held that the former decision, had not in fact over-ruled the decision of the Kerala High Court in commrce of I. T. v. Dharmodayan and Co ( (1974) 94 ITR. 113) although there were some obser. Vations to that effect and that the decision of the Kerala High Court in that case was in fact correct. In that view, the appeal filed against the decision of the Kerala High Court was dismissed. ( 9 ) IT is also not shown that in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce (3), the Supreme Court hag held that the last clause in Sec. 2 (15) namely, "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" would apply to all the four objects mentioned therein. On the other hand it appears that the Supreme Court has held that the said clause qualifies only 'any other object of general public utility' from the following observation made therein :"when Parliament found this dubious growth of charitable chameleons the definition in Sec. 2 (15) was altered to suppress the mischief by qualifying the broad object of 'general public utility' with the additive 'not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit'. " ( 10 ) MOREOVER the Special Leave Petition filed against the decision in the case of ALN. Rao Charitable Trust (2) has been dismissed by the Supreme court after the decision in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce (3) Hence no assistance can be derived by the Dept from that case. We feel that there is no justifiable ground to take a view contrary to the view taken by this Court in the case of ALN. Rao Charitable Trust (2 ). The first three objects in Section 2 (15) namely, relief of the poor, education and medical relief are by themselves considered as charitable purposes and there was no need to qualify them. Rao Charitable Trust (2 ). The first three objects in Section 2 (15) namely, relief of the poor, education and medical relief are by themselves considered as charitable purposes and there was no need to qualify them. Because the Parliament was introducing into the definition of 'charitable purpose' a new category of a general nature, namely, 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' it added the qualifying words appearing in the last clause to prevent adventures of purely commercial nature claiming the benefit of exemption under the Act. ( 11 ) HENCE, following the decision in the case of ALN. Rao Charitable trust (2), we answer the question referred to us in each of these cases in the affirmative and against the Dept. The assessees are entitled to costs advocate's fee Rs. 250. 00, one set. --- *** --- .