COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. NATIONAL ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR TESTING AND CALIBRATION LABORATORIES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/284/2016HC DelhiDLHC01124678201602 May 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court found that the ITAT's positive findings of fact, stating that the assessee (National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories) is not engaged in trade, commerce, or business and that its dominant and prime objective is charitable in nature in accordance with Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not perverse. The Court also noted that the respondent is part of the central government. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The Court further observed that the respondent assessee is a charitable institution.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi against the order dated November 26, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 1115/Del/2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The dispute concerns whether the respondent, National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had made positive findings of fact that the assessee is not engaged in trade, commerce, or business, and its dominant objective is charitable in nature as per Section 2(15) of the Act. The respondent is also noted to be part of the central government.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Respondent, National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories, is entitled to exemption under Section 11 and Section 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2009-10? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's findings, which the High Court found not perverse, indicate that the assessee's dominant objective is charitable and it is not engaged in business. The assessee is also part of the central government. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, challenged the ITAT's order. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments before the High Court, but it implies they sought to overturn the ITAT's decision regarding the exemption eligibility.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 284/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 26 +

ITA 284/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI

..... Appellant

Through Mr P. Roychaudhuri, Senior Standing

Counsel.

versus

NATIONAL ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR TESTING AND CALIBRATION LABORATORIES

..... Respondent

Through

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

02.05.2016

CM 15851/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

ITA 284/2016 2. This is an appeal against the order dated 26th November, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 1115/Del/2013 for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-10.

3.

The short question is whether the Respondent National Accreditation Board For Testing and Calibration Laboratories is entitled to exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA 284/2016 Page 2 of 2

4.

The positive findings of the ITAT on facts is that the Assessee is not engaged in trade, commerce and business and its dominant and prime objective is charitable in nature in accordance with Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Court also notes that the Respondent is part of the central government. The Court is unable to be persuaded to hold that the findings of the ITAT are perverse. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.

5.

We also further observe that the Respondent Assessee is a charitable institution.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 02, 2016 pkv

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →