DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HABITAT CENTRE

ITA - 1177 / 2008HC Delhi12 October 201116 pages
For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the CIT erred in revising the assessment order. The Tribunal had correctly reversed the CIT's view, finding that the contributions were not towards a corpus and were utilized for construction. The court also noted the principle of consistency in revenue's approach for subsequent years.

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 constructing a super-structure. The CIT revised the Assessing Officer's order, holding that the assessee's income was not exempt under Section 11.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263, and whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11 given the nature of contributions and utilization of funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13(1)(c),Section 13(3),Section 263,Section 143(1)(a),Section 148,Section 260A

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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →