DCIT(E), CIRCLE- 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ERNET INDIA, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the issues were squarely covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case. These decisions established that the assessee's functions were not in the nature of trade or business, and therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not attracted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, ERNET India, an autonomous society established as a non-profitable organization, provides data connectivity and research project services. The Revenue argued that its activities were commercial in nature, thus not qualifying for charitable exemption under Section 11, due to charging consideration and earning significant profits.
What were the issues?
Whether the activities of the assessee, despite being for a nation-wide academic and research network, were commercial in nature and therefore disentitled to charitable exemption under Section 11 due to the proviso to Section 2(15).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)51 citing360 ITR 138 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI ]
Before: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYASHRI AMIT SHUKLA
O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M.
The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–40, New Delhi, for the quantum of assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for assessment year 2014-15.
The common grounds of appeal, raised by the Revenue are as under:- Page | 1 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by ignoring the fact that even though the objects of the society may have been charitable but the activities carried out by the society which yielded income to it were commercial in nature.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that assessee was earning huge profits by providing data connectivity to its subscribers in lieu of consideration as per its objects and charity can nowhere be seen in the whole process. “
3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these issues are squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case pertaining to the assessment years 2009-10 to assessment year 2015-16 and the appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 passed by the Tribunal has also been confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, these cases are squarely covered.
The ld. DR also admitted that the issues are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
The facts in brief are that assessee is an Autonomous Society under the Department of Information & Technology, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Government of India, which was established as a non-profitable organization. It was registered under Section 12A of the Act vide certificate / order dated 26.03.2004. The main object of the assessee was to run a nation-wide academic and research network, to undertake and promote R & D in the area of communication, develop policy options in the country for development of network infrastructure and to act as a research centre for technological and managerial resources in the area of computer network. The case was taken up for scrutiny and relying on the assessments made in earlier years, it was held that the appellant's transactions are in the nature of business or commerce similar to private players in the market on the following grounds:
(i) the appellant has entered into memoranda of understanding with various subscribers for providing services in lieu of specified consideration;
(ii) the appellant charges professional fee for services rendered to government institutions, in relation to execution of their Network Research Projects, which has led to huge surplus;
(iii) the appellant is earning exceptionally high net profit from the 'business' of providing connectivity and research project services; It was held that the appellant is covered by the proviso to amended definition contained in section 2(15) and its activities are not charitable and exemption under section 11 was denied.
Since exemption under section 11 was denied, voluntary contributions received were treated as income. Hence, addition made to earmarked funds amounting to Rs.28,72,65,874/- was added to the income of the assessee. Entire surplus as per Income & Expenditure account was held to be taxable. Only depreciation on assets purchased during the financial year 2013-14 was allowed since capital expenditure for earlier years had been allowed as application of income. Income was computed at Rs.35,44,66,022/-.
The ld. CIT (Appeals) after incorporating the entire submissions of the assessee held that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 have held that assessee is not involved in any trade or business and, therefore, proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is not attracted.
We find that this issue was discussed thread-bare by the Tribunal in the case for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 in and 2874/Del/2014 vide order dated 27.12.2017 and held that no part of the function carried out by the assessee is in the nature of trade / business. The said order of the Tribunal has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA. Nos. 642 / 637 of 2018 vide separate order dated 25.09.2018 and 28.05.2018 respectively. Respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble High Court, who has upheld the order of the Tribunal holding that the same has to be laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. GSI India Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) reported in (2014) 360 ITR 138. Not only that again in the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 passed by the Tribunal vide their order dated 8.11.2018 for assessment year 2011-12 the Hon’ble High court has again confirmed the said order. It has been brought on record that for the assessment year 2012-13 also and again for the assessment year 2015-16 same orders have been followed. Accordingly, we hold that the issues raised by the Revenue are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of the assessee as well as by the Tribunal and, therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Page | 4
Order pronounced in the open court on : 27/01/2022.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic…Mumbai24 Dec 2025Dismissed
Also relies on GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) and is entitled to exemption under Section 11. The additions made by the AO regarding interest income and corpus donations were rightly delet...
- M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore16 Jun 2022Dismissed
Also relies on GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)
The Tribunal held that the assessees' activities, which included civil contract work like road construction and building repairs, were commercial in nature and not in accordance with their stated charitable objects. Ther...
- Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, LucknowLucknow8 Jun 2022Dismissed
Also relies on GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). It also found that benefits provided to employees did not violate Section 13(3) as they were n...
- DCIT(E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs Ernet India, DelhiDelhi27 Jan 2022Dismissed
Also relies on GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)
The Tribunal held that the issues were squarely covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case. These decisions established that the assessee's functions were not in the...
- ACIT(E), Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs Professional Assistance for Development…Delhi23 Sept 2021Dismissed
Also relies on GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)
The Tribunal held that the facts for the current assessment year were identical to previous years where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee by coordinate benches. Therefore, the Tribunal followed its pre...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026