ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PRAXIS-INSTITUTER FOR PARTICIPATORY PRACTICES, NEW 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 there was no justification for denying the exemption under Section 11(1) for AY 2012-13, especially after previous orders from the ITAT and Delhi High Court had allowed such exemption for the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) upholding the exemption was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a registered charitable institution, had its exemption under Section 11(1) denied by the AO for AY 2012-13, citing that its activities were in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, and thus covered by the proviso to Section 2(15). This denial followed similar actions in previous assessment years.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's activities fall under the proviso to Section 2(15) and thus disqualify it from exemption under Section 11(1), despite previous favorable rulings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/s Praxis-Institute for Participatory Practices, BB-5, 2nd Ward-2(4), New Delhi Floor, Greater Kailash, Enclave-2, New Delhi-110048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEFP7881Q CO No. 337/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/s Praxis-Institute for Vs Income Tax Officer, Participatory Practices, BB-5, Ward-2(4), 2nd Floor, Greater Kailash, New Delhi Enclave-2, New Delhi-110048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEFP7881Q Assessee by : Sh. Rajeev Kumar Jha, CA Revenue by : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 02.09.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-40, New Delhi dated 05.07.2016.
Only one ground has been raised in this appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act and treating the same as charitable institution as activities of assessee are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and the 2 CO No. 337/Del/2016 Praxis Institute for Participatory Practices case is covered by the new proviso to section 2(15) of the Act.”
The assessee is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 18650 on 14/08/1997 and is also registered u/s 12A on 10.03.1999 and is also notified u/s 80G on 25.09.2008. The main objects of the assessee Society undertaking support to several communities and organizations in the development sector on beneficiary participation in the programme, research, advocacy, capacity building and training with an emphasis on participatory methods. The assessee receives the grants from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, UNICEF, CARE, IPA etc.
3.1 The assessee had been enjoying the benefit of exemption us 11(1) as a charitable institution but the same was denied by the AO during the A.Y 2009-10 by invoking the proviso of section 2(15) mainly on the ground that the assessee is involved in trade, commerce or business as the assessee used to receive fees and receipts or consultancy etc. for the research, advocacy, capacity building and training works. The order of the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A)-XXI, New Delhi (old) but the same has been reversed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi with a direction to allow the exemption u/s 11 (1) and also allow the approval of section 80G(5) vide para 19 & 20 of the order dated 09/01/2015 in and 5891/Del/2012. The order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi was confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court ITA 672/2015 in its order dated 23/09/2015 in para 4 & 5 in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10 has observed as under: In view of the above factual findings, which have not been shown to be perverse, the court
3 CO No. 337/Del/2016 Praxis Institute for Participatory Practices is not persuaded to hold that any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the TAT, Delhi.
3.2 Further, the addition was made during the A.Y 2010-11 & 2011-12 by invoking the proviso of section 2(15) mainly on the ground that the assessee is involved in trade, commerce or business as the assessee used to receive fees and receipts or consultancy etc. for the research, advocacy, capacity building and training works. The order of the AO was reversed by the CIT(A)-40, New Delhi vide para 4.4 of the order dated 23/02/2015 in Appeal No. 556/2013-14 and 345/2014-15 with a direction to allow the exemption u/s 11(1).
3.3 The AO had again denied the exemption u/s 11(1) to the assessee during the A.Y. 2012-13 following the earlier order of A.Y 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 on the similar grounds vide the orders of the AO.
3.4 The assessee is in appeal against the assessment order of the AO for the A.Y 2012-13 and it is submitted that the assessee is a charitable institution and the AO is not justified to deny the exemption u/s 11(1) and the assessee also relied on the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi dated 09/01/2015 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 23/09/2015 as referred above.
Having heard the arguments and going through the records, we find that there is no proper justification for denying the exemption u/s 11(1) for the A.Y 2012-13 after the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi which has allowed exemption u/s 11(1) and accordingly the revenue directed to allow the exemption u/s 11(1) for the A.Y 2012-13.
4 CO No. 337/Del/2016 Praxis Institute for Participatory Practices The order of the ld. CIT (A) is hereby upheld. The CO which is in support of the order of the ld. CIT (A) is treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02/09/2019).
More judgments on Section 11(1)
- Rkkr Foundation, Chandigarh vs DCIT, Exemption Circle 1, ChandigarhITA 477/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rkkr Foundation, Chandigarh vs DCIT, Exemption Circle 1, ChandigarhITA 477/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- St. Judes Church, Shimmoga vs Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward - 1…ITA 1830/BANG/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- Agarwal Pragati Trust, Surat vs ITO (Exemption) Ward, SuratITA 849/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Agarwal Pragati Trust, Surat vs ITO (Exemption) Ward, SuratITA 848/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026