MANMADE AND TECHNICAL TEXTILES EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD2(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2739/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 September 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to consider the previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. If the facts are identical, the AO is directed to delete the additions.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption for membership fees, but the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed it due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee argued that the issue was covered by previous ITAT decisions in their own case.

What were the issues?

Whether the membership fees claimed for exemption were eligible for such exemption, considering previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case and the lack of documentary evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10,Section 11,Section 12A,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

Pronounced: 16.09.2026

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) vide DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2024-25/1075201571(1) dated 09-Jan-2026 for the Assessment Year 2023-24. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) The CIT Appeal has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.2,11,28,700/- towards the membership fees. 2) The CIT Appeal has failed to consider the grounds of appeal and statements of facts which clearly mentioned about the claim of exemption u/s.10 for membership fees 3) The CIT Appeal has failed to delete the addition

4) The CIT Appeal has failed to consider various judgment placed on records by the appellant in support of their stand 5) The CIT Appeal has failed to consider the fact that the trust is registered u/s.12A and enjoys benefit u/s.11 6) The CIT Appeal has failed to address the ground on imitation of penalty u/s.270(A) 7) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, OR modify all OR any of the above Ground/s of appeal on OR before the date of hearing as they may be advised from time to time. 8) The CIT Appeals has failed to Consider the orders passed by the Honorable ITAT Mumbai on the similar issues for A.Y.2004-05,2006-07,2008-09,2009- 10,2011-12 and 2012-13. 9) The CIT(A) has failed to consider that appellant is consistent in their approach and such consistency has been enunciated by Supreme Court in the Case of Radho Swamy Satsang

2.

The only effective ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards the membership fee.

3.

In this regard, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has not at all considered the orders passed by the coordinate bench of the ITAT on the similar issue for Assessment Years 2004-05, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2012-13. It was submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case and the learned CIT(A) has totally ignored the same.

4. From the records, we noticed that during the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed exemption of membership fee. However, the assessee failed to furnish supporting documentary evidence regarding the exemption of membership fee. Therefore, the AO disallowed the membership fee and added the same to the income of the assessee. Even before the learned CIT(A), it was held that the assessee had failed to explain as to why this claim of mutuality should not be disallowed.

5.

Be that as it may, since the learned AR appearing on behalf of the assessee categorically submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the decisions of the coordinate bench of the ITAT in a series of cases in the assessee's own case, whereas the revenue authority has not at all considered the said factual position, the Bench is of the view that the matter needs to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider all the decisions referred to by the assessee in its own case and to find out as to whether the facts of those cases are identical with the facts of the present case during the year under consideration.

6.

In case it is found on verification by the Assessing Officer that the facts of those years are identical with the facts of the present case, then, in that eventuality, while following the decisions of the coordinate bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case, the additions made by the AO are directed to be deleted.

7.

Needless to mention that the AO shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

8.

Before parting, we want to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 16.09.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: MANMADE AND TECHNICAL TEXTILES EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, SRTEPC,1ST FLOOR, RESHMA BHAVAN 78, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, 1 CHURCHGATE, MARINE LINES SO MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA THE INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD2(1), 2 6TH FLOOR, MTNL BUILDING PEDDER ROAD MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 10

All 591 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →