THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the controversy in the present case was concluded by its earlier judgment dated 27.09.2019 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Gujarat Cricket Association, rendered in Tax Appeals No.268 of 2012 and allied matters. In that judgment, the issue had been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, the High Court held that the present appeal does not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The specific findings of the ITAT on the issues of exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, and the applicability of Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act, were not detailed as the High Court relied on its prior decision.
What were the facts?
The Revenue has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench ‘B’. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2014-15 and concerns the allowance of exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee, Baroda Cricket Association. The Revenue contends that the assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities and that its activities fall within the ambit of Section 2(15) of the Act, thereby disentitling it to the claimed exemptions. The ITAT had previously allowed these exemptions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act without considering that the assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities, and holding that the assessee's activity is covered under the first and second proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act of Rs.1,47,98,329/- without appreciating that the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemption under Section 11(2) of the Act of Rs.4,50,00,000/- without appreciating that the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities and its activities are covered by Section 2(15) of the Act, disentitling it to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 11,Section 12,Section 2(15),Section 13(8)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the appellant Revenue has challenged the order dated 11.06.2019 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘B’ in ITA No.2675/Ahd/2017 for assessment year 201415 by proposing the following three questions stated to be substantial questions of law: “[A] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions u/s.11 and 12 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities in nature of business and holding that the C/TAXAP/759/2019 ORDER activity of the assessee is covered under first and second proviso to section 2(5) of the Act? [B] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act of Rs.l,47,98,329/ without appreciating the fact that the assessee is covered by the provisions of section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act? [C] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions u/s.l1(2) of the Act of Rs.4,50,00,000/ without appreciating the fact that the assessee is covered by the provisions of section 2(15) r.w.s 13(8) of the Act?”
Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, who has reiterated the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal.
It is an admitted position that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a judgment dated 27.09.2019 passed by this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Gujarat Cricket Association rendered in Tax Appeals No.268 of 2012 and allied matters, wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Under the circumstances, it C/TAXAP/759/2019 ORDER is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
For the reasons recorded in the judgment and order dated 27.09.2019 made in Tax Appeals No.268 of 2012 and allied matters, this appeal does not give rise to any question of law, much less, any substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) PRAVIN KARUNAN
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026