(1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

133 ITR 470High Court1982#2847 most cited

What is (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For an activity to be considered 'business' under income tax law, it must occupy time, attention, and labour with a normal object of making profit. Profit motive is an important factor, and the activity should involve a continuous course of dealings between two or more persons.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT · 133 ITR 470 · definition of business · meaning of business activity · profit motive · Section 2(15) proviso · charitable trust exemption · general public utility · continuous activity · reciprocity · business income

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(4A)Section 115BBESection 12Section 12ABSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mliput to usesection 10(23c)section 2(15)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

SHRI SHYAM PANCHAYTI VISHRAM BHAWAN,SIKAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 679/JPR/2024[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025
For Appellant: Shri Phru Bhansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT (Th. VH)
Section 11Section 12Section 12A

…, it is\nrational to infer that the essential question triggering the applicability of proviso to\nSection 2(15) concerns to what exactly constitutes as a \"business\" or business activity.\nA reference can be drawn to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in 133 ITR 470\nwherein the Hon'ble court undertook an exercise to interpret the term \"business.\" In\nthis regard, the Hon'ble High Court stated for any activity to be defined as \"business\",\nprofit motive is an important factor. The profit motive may not be the sole criteria for\nan activity to be defined as a business, but nevertheless is an important cri…

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

…nature of trade, commerce or manufacture". The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Motilal Heerabhai Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (1977) 113 ITR 173 (Guj) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Development (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 133 ITR 470 (Del) has observed that the word 'business' is of large and indefinite import and connotes something which occupies the time, attention and labour of a person normally with the object of making profit. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Turner Morission & Co. (1929) ILR 56 (Cal) 211 and the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Naras…

M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 172/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate &
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 2Section 234

…or capable of producing profit. To regard an activity as business, there must be a course of dealings continued, or contemplated to be continued, normally with an object of making profit and not for sport or pleasure (Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi)). The third essential characteristic is that a business transaction must be between two persons. Business is not a unilateral act. It is brought about by a transaction between two or more persons. And, lastly, the business activity usually involves a twin activity. There is usually an element of reciprocity involved in a business transact…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth editio…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth editio…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth editio…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) = (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in theCommentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi&Pithisaria(Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol1 ; Fifth editio…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 64 of 176 contemplated to be continued, normally with an object of making profit and not for sport or pleasure [Bharat Development (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 58 / 133 ITR 470 (Delhi)]. The third essential characteristic is that a business transaction must be between two persons. Business is not a unilateral act. It is brought about by a transaction between two or more persons. And lastly, the business activity usually involves a twin activity. There is usually an element of reciprocity involved in a business transacti…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 64 of 176 contemplated to be continued, normally with an object of making profit and not for sport or pleasure [Bharat Development (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 58 / 133 ITR 470 (Delhi)]. The third essential characteristic is that a business transaction must be between two persons. Business is not a unilateral act. It is brought about by a transaction between two or more persons. And lastly, the business activity usually involves a twin activity. There is usually an element of reciprocity involved in a business transacti…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 64 of 176 contemplated to be continued, normally with an object of making profit and not for sport or pleasure [Bharat Development (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 58 / 133 ITR 470 (Delhi)]. The third essential characteristic is that a business transaction must be between two persons. Business is not a unilateral act. It is brought about by a transaction between two or more persons. And lastly, the business activity usually involves a twin activity. There is usually an element of reciprocity involved in a business transacti…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 64 of 176 contemplated to be continued, normally with an object of making profit and not for sport or pleasure [Bharat Development (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 58 / 133 ITR 470 (Delhi)]. The third essential characteristic is that a business transaction must be between two persons. Business is not a unilateral act. It is brought about by a transaction between two or more persons. And lastly, the business activity usually involves a twin activity. There is usually an element of reciprocity involved in a business transacti…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 64 of 176 contemplated to be continued, normally with an object of making profit and not for sport or pleasure [Bharat Development (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 58 / 133 ITR 470 (Delhi)]. The third essential characteristic is that a business transaction must be between two persons. Business is not a unilateral act. It is brought about by a transaction between two or more persons. And lastly, the business activity usually involves a twin activity. There is usually an element of reciprocity involved in a business transacti…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 64 of 176 contemplated to be continued, normally with an object of making profit and not for sport or pleasure [Bharat Development (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 58 / 133 ITR 470 (Delhi)]. The third essential characteristic is that a business transaction must be between two persons. Business is not a unilateral act. It is brought about by a transaction between two or more persons. And lastly, the business activity usually involves a twin activity. There is usually an element of reciprocity involved in a business transacti…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 64 of 176 contemplated to be continued, normally with an object of making profit and not for sport or pleasure [Bharat Development (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 58 / 133 ITR 470 (Delhi)]. The third essential characteristic is that a business transaction must be between two persons. Business is not a unilateral act. It is brought about by a transaction between two or more persons. And lastly, the business activity usually involves a twin activity. There is usually an element of reciprocity involved in a business transacti…

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/LKW/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…1 (SC) ; Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co- operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); Mahammad Faruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in the Commentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi & Page 57 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) Pit…

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…1 (SC) ; Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co- operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); Mahammad Faruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in the Commentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi & Page 57 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) Pit…

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…1 (SC) ; Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co- operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); Mahammad Faruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot v. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC))." The expression "business" has further been defined in the Commentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi & Page 57 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) Pit…

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 24/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…1 (SC); Director of Supplies and Disposals vs. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST vs. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); Mahammad Faruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot vs. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot vs. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC)).” The expression "business" has further been defined in the Commentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi & Pithisaria (Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol 1; Fifth ed…

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 23/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…1 (SC); Director of Supplies and Disposals vs. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST vs. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); Mahammad Faruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot vs. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot vs. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC)).” The expression "business" has further been defined in the Commentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi & Pithisaria (Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol 1; Fifth ed…

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

ITA 211/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 2(15)

…1 (SC); Director of Supplies and Disposals vs. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST vs. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); Mahammad Faruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot vs. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR 2164 (SC) (1985) 60 STC 296 (SC); Government Medical Store Depot vs. State of Haryana, (1986) 63 STC 198(SC)).” The expression "business" has further been defined in the Commentary on Income Tax Law by Chaturvedi & Pithisaria (Pages 1322 and 1323; Vol 1; Fifth ed…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

(1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (133 ITR 470) — Cited in 41 Judgments | BharatTax