DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HABITAT CENTRE

ITA - 1288 / 2008HC Delhi12 October 201116 pages
For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal correctly reversed the CIT's order, holding that the contributions were not corpus donations and were used for construction, thus not violating Section 13(1)(c). The CIT had wrongly considered activities from later periods and failed to apply the principle of consistency.

What were the facts?

The assessee, India Habitat Centre, was set up to provide physical space for institutions. It received contributions from institutional members, which were used for construction, granting them proportionate rights. The CIT revised the Assessing Officer's order, which had granted exemption under Section 11, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT erred in revising the assessment order granting exemption under Section 11, and if the contributions received were in violation of Section 13(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13(1)(c),Section 13(3),Section 263,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

ITA Nos. 226/2005, 228/2005, 229/2005 & 230/2005, 1175/2008, 1288/2008 & 1177/2008

*

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 12.10.2011

+ ITA Nos. 226/2005, 228/2005, 229/2005 & 230/2005, 1175/2008, 1288/2008 & 1177/2008 Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal For the Respondent : Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.P. Rastogi & Mr K.N. Ahuja

CORAM :- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest ?

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

1.

The captioned appeals pertain to assessment year 1990-1991, 1991-92, 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999. The revenue being aggrieved by two sets of common ju

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →