DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ODIA SAMAJ, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration. The contributions received were considered eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a registered trust, organized an event and received substantial sums from various entities. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these receipts as income from business by invoking the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) directed the AO to recompute the exemption.
What were the issues?
Whether receipts from an event organized by a charitable trust constitute business income attracting the Proviso to Section 2(15) or are donations eligible for exemption.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 2(15),Section 194J,Section 194C,Section 133(6),Section 80G,Section 68,Section 12A,Section 10(46),Section 11,Section 12
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association328 citing121 ITR 1 · 1980 · SC
- (CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer's Association35 citing2 SCC 31 · 1980
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objections by the Assessee are directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.10.2024 arising out of the Assessment Order dated 29.09.2022
under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax
Department, for AY – 2020-21. Both the appeals are heard analogously and are being disposed of by
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.
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 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026