DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. M/S TAMILNADU TENNIS ASSOCIATION, SDAT, NUNGAMBAKKAM
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 sports promotion constitutes human resource development and is at par with education. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable to the assessee's activities, and the exemption under Section 11 was rightly granted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a registered trust, claimed exemption under Section 11. The Assessing Officer invoked the proviso to Section 2(15), treating the surplus from conducting a tennis tournament as business income and brought it to tax. The CIT(A) allowed the exemption, relying on previous Tribunal orders.
What were the issues?
Whether the proviso to Section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee's activities of conducting a tennis tournament, and if the surplus generated is taxable as business income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI SONJOY SARMA
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 19-05- 2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 02-03-2016. The sole grievance of the revenue is grant of exemption u/s 11 to the assessee by Ld. CIT(A) disregarding the proviso to Sec.2(15) as invoked by Ld. AO.
ITA No.601/Chny/2022 - 2 - 2. The Ld. Sr. DR justified invocation of proviso to Sec.2(15) by Ld. AO and relied on the assessment order. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, submitted that the issue stood covered in assessee’s favor by orders of Tribunal in earlier years. The Ld. AR submitted that it has been held by the Tribunal that the assessee’s activities constitute ‘education’ and therefore, the proviso to 2(15) would not apply to the case of the assessee. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
The assessee is a registered trust u/s 12AA and it claimed exemption u/s 11 & 12 as applicable to a registered trust. The Ld. AO, considering the nature of income of the assessee, held that the main receipt of the assessee as well as main expenditure was in respect of conducting ‘Aircel Chennai Open Tournament’. The assessee was in receipt of various streams of income including sponsorship receipts. The profit was not incidental but substantial in nature. The activities of the assessee clearly come within the purview of ‘Business’. Finally, invoking the proviso to Sec.2(15), the surplus arising from this activity was brought to tax. Apart from this, the expenditure incurred outside India for training of players was also disallowed u/s 11(1)(a). After making various other adjustments including disallowance of depreciation, the income was computed as Rs.182.53 Lacs.
The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11, & 1758/Mds/2013 common order dated 28.11.2014. In this order, it was held that sports promotion would be human resource development and considering the polity declaration of government of India, sports is construed at par with education. Accordingly, the objects of the assessee would fall
ITA No.601/Chny/2022 - 3 - within the scope of education as defined u/s 2(15). Accordingly, proviso to Sec.2(15) would not be applicable. The disallowance of depreciation was also adjudicated in assessee’s favor in the same order. Considering the same, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the grounds raised by the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.
5. Before us, the position that similar issue has been addressed by the Tribunal in earlier years, remain undisturbed before us. This decision has subsequently been followed by the co-ordinate bench in & 2559/Mds/2016 for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 also vide common order dated 18.01.2018. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
6. The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 07th September, 2022.
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. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026