19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai Publication Fund

126 STC 288Supreme Court of India2002#10146 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Judgments citing 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai Publication Fund

DCIT (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI vs. J.K.TRUST BOMBAY, MUMBAI

In the result, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error and the Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A. Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263Section 80G

…circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC): [2002] 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is that whether the petitioner-Institute pursues the activity of business, trade or commerce. To our mind, the respondent whi…

J.K.TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1564/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri NiranjanFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh

Section 12ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT (E) 2(1) J. K. Trust Bombay, 5th floor, Piramal Ground Floor, New Hind बिधम/ House, Narottam Morarjee Chambers, Lalbaug Vs. Marg, Bellard Estate, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAATT0611L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3084/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) J. K. Trust Bombay, DCIT (E) 2(1) 5th floor, Piramal Ground Floor, N…

DCIT (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI vs. J.K.TRUST BOMBAY, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 3084/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri NiranjanFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh

Section 12ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)

RAJASTHA GAU SEWA SANGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 113/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 748/Jp/2015 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 (U/S 254/12Aa(1)(B)Of I.T. Act 1961) Cuke M/S. Rajasthan Gau Seva Sangh The Cit(Exemptions) Vs. Durgapura, Tonk Road,Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aaatr 0809 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 113/Jp/2014 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cuke M/S. Rajasthan Gau Seva Sangh The Ito Vs. Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur Ward- 6(2),Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aaatr 0809 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca & Shri O.P. Agarwal, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11-09-2015 Of Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Jaipur Passed U/S 12Aa(1)(B) Of The Act As Well As Order Dated 17-12-2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CA and Shri O.P. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(a)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 254

…ould be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in Raipur Manufacturing Company (1967) 19 STC 1 (SC) and Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70 (SC); (2002) 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher (1981) STC 238 (sic) are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts.' (Emphasis supplied) 17. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning set out by the Gujarat High Court in its order dated 15th January, 2014 in DIT (Exemption) v. Sabarmat…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. ANIMAL BREEDING RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, (INDIA), ANAND

In the result, this tax appeal is dismissed

ITA 2639/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 44ASection 80G(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2639/Ahd/2017 & CO No.07/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) DCIT(Exemption), Vs. Animal Breeding Research Circle – 2, Organization (India), Ahmedabad. Off NDDB Campus, Anand – 388001. [PAN No. AAATA 3919 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Appellant by : Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R. Date of Hearing 04/03/2019 Date of Pronouncement 04/03/2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal f…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. ANIMAL BREEDING RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, (INDIA), ANAND

In the result, this tax appeal is dismissed

ITA 773/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.773/Ahd/2017 & CO No.63/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Year :2012-13) DCIT (Exemption), Vs. Animal Breeding Research Circle – 2, Organization (India), Ahmedabad-380 009. Off NDDB Campus, Anand – 388 001. [PAN No. AAATA 3919 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross Objector) Appellant by : Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R. Date of Hearing 10/01/2019 Date of Pronouncement 28/02/2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal…

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जे’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s The J. K. Trust CIT (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAATT0611L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Rakesh Mohan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD vs. ANIMAL BREEDING RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, (INDIA), ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2496/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2

…ould be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in Raipur Manufacturing Company [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and Soi Publication fund [20Q2] 258 ITR 70 (SC); {2002} 126 STC 288 (SC} can be applied. The six indicia ITA No.2496 /Ahd/2015 with CO 4 stipulated in Lord fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is tht whether the petitioner-Institute pursues the activity of business, trade or commerce.…

M/S. AKHIL BHARTIYA GRAMEEN VIKAS SANSTHA,NEW DELHI vs. DIT (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1037/DEL/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaakhil Bhartiya Grameen Vikas Vs Dit(Exemptions) Sanstha New Delhi. 1442, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakapur, New Delhi. Aaaaa5560E

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…y undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 1 SC and CST v. Sai Akhil Bhartiya Grameen Vikas Sanstha Page 11 of 13 Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 SC ; [2002] 126 STC 288 SC can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Lord Fisher [1981] S. T. C. 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts," 6.4 Thus, the principle of law which emerges from the judicial pronounce- ments is that if the predominant object of a trust or institution is charita…

M/S. RUBBER SKILL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL,NEW DELHI vs. DIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is ·allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3216/DEL/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Nathani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan, CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 25

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: “F” New Delhi BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 3216/Del/2014 AY : - Rubber Skill Development Council vs. DIT(E) (Formerly Rubber Skill Development Centre), New Delhi. PHD House, 4th Floor, Opposite Asian Games Village, Siri Fort Institutional Area New Delhi – 110 016 (PAN AAGCR0960D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Gopal Nathani, CA Respondent by : Smt. Nandita Kanchan, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date of pronouncement : .11.2015 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SR…