133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO

15 STC 664Supreme Court of India1964#11125 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23EC)Section 11Section 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 12ASection 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)corpus fundsection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)proviso to section 2(15)section 2(15)section 12aacross objectionsection 12asection 10section 12scrutiny assessment

Judgments citing 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…the decisions in cases of ICAI Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1927 Of 2010 dated 19/09/2011, Suart art Silk Mfrs. Association (1979) 121 ITR 1, Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association dated (1983) 140 ITR 1(SC), Sai Publication Fund (2002) 4 SCC 57. H. Abdul Bakhi (1964) 15 STC 664 (SC), Lahore Electric Supply Company (1966) 60 ITR 1(SC).” 4. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and held that its activities were not charitable. The AO was also of the view that assessee trust was set up as per SEBI/FMC guidelines which was not a voluntary activity. The assessing officer also of the view that act…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3198/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…the decisions in cases of ICAI Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1927 Of 2010 dated 19/09/2011, Suart art Silk Mfrs. Association (1979) 121 ITR 1, Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association dated (1983) 140 ITR 1(SC), Sai Publication Fund (2002) 4 SCC 57. H. Abdul Bakhi (1964) 15 STC 664 (SC), Lahore Electric Supply Company (1966) 60 ITR 1(SC).” 4. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and held that its activities were not charitable. The AO was also of the view that assessee trust was set up as per SEBI/FMC guidelines which was not a voluntary activity. The assessing officer also of the view that act…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3197/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…the decisions in cases of ICAI Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1927 Of 2010 dated 19/09/2011, Suart art Silk Mfrs. Association (1979) 121 ITR 1, Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association dated (1983) 140 ITR 1(SC), Sai Publication Fund (2002) 4 SCC 57. H. Abdul Bakhi (1964) 15 STC 664 (SC), Lahore Electric Supply Company (1966) 60 ITR 1(SC).” 4. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and held that its activities were not charitable. The AO was also of the view that assessee trust was set up as per SEBI/FMC guidelines which was not a voluntary activity. The assessing officer also of the view that act…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3195/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…the decisions in cases of ICAI Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1927 Of 2010 dated 19/09/2011, Suart art Silk Mfrs. Association (1979) 121 ITR 1, Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association dated (1983) 140 ITR 1(SC), Sai Publication Fund (2002) 4 SCC 57. H. Abdul Bakhi (1964) 15 STC 664 (SC), Lahore Electric Supply Company (1966) 60 ITR 1(SC).” 4. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and held that its activities were not charitable. The AO was also of the view that assessee trust was set up as per SEBI/FMC guidelines which was not a voluntary activity. The assessing officer also of the view that act…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1355/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…hoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat 29 I.T.A. No.2235/DEL/2019 Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the concept and principle of "economic activity" that has gained some accept…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4326/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4326/Mum/2017, 4327/Mum/2017, 4329/Mum/2017, 4331/Mum/2017, 4332/Mum/2017, 4475/Mum/2017 & 4476/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11,2012–13,2013–14 &, 2014–15) Maharashtra Industrial Development Assistant Commissioner Of Income Corporation Tax (Exemptions) 2(1) Udyog Sarathi, Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Mahakali Caves Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri V. Sridharan & S. Sriram प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit–Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (CIT–DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…Distilleries Ltd. V/s State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development (P) Ltd. V/s CIT[1982] 133 ITR 470198014 Taxman 58 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray V/s ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295/6 Taxman 19 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh V/s H. Abdul Bakhi & Bros [1964] 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat V/s RaiourMfg. Co. [1967] 19 STC 1(SC), Director of Supplies & Disposal V/s. Member, Board of Revenue [1967] 20STC 398(SC) and 17 ITA 4326, 4327, 4329, 4331, 4332, 4475 &4476/Mum/ 2017 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Mrs.Sarojini Rajah V/s CZT[19691 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or bus…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2874/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…30 (SC) ; [1968] 2 SCR 536, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the concept and principle of "economic activity" that has gained some accept…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2873/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…30 (SC) ; [1968] 2 SCR 536, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the concept and principle of "economic activity" that has gained some accept…

M/S. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun vs. CIT, Dehradun

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

ITA 180/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2017

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh B. Chhibber, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…30 (SC) ; [1968] 2 SCR 536, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the concept and principle of "economic activity" that has gained some accept…