362 ITR 539 (Gujarat) (d) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT

347 ITR 99High Court2012#951 most cited

What is 362 ITR 539 (Gujarat) (d) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT authority for?

The broad definition of 'business' should not be applied when interpreting the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the object and purpose of the section must be considered.

112

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v DGIT · 347 ITR 99 · Delhi High Court · Section 2(15) · proviso to Section 2(15) · charitable purpose · advancement of general public utility · business · trade · commerce · exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 2(15)Section 11Section 143(3)Section 12Section 11 of the Income-tax ActSection 11(1) of the Income-tax ActSection 11(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)mutuality principlesection 205section 2(13)advancement of general public utilitysection 10(23c)(iv)section 36(1)(v)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(6)section 2(11)section 13(8)section 11(4a)

Judgments citing 362 ITR 539 (Gujarat) (d) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT

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 630/LKW/2016[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)

…cability of proviso to section 2(15) of Income-tax Act was discussed after taking cognizance of in numerous case laws, some of which are enumerated as under: 1. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Director General of Income-tax (Exemption) [2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) 2. CIT Versus Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow 2014 (2) ALJ 578 3. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980]121 ITR 1 (SC) 4. CIT Versus Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samite 2012 (12) SCC 267 5. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC) 6. CIT Versus Andhra Pr…

Sports Authority of Gujarat, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT (Exemprtion) (Hq), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 943/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)

…dering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business as such activities are undertaken by the petitioner institute in furtherance of its main object which as held earlier are not trade, commerce or business. 6.7 In the case of ICAI v. DGIT(E) [2012] 347 ITR 99/[2011] 202 Taxman 1/13 taxmann.com 175 (Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that while construing the term business for the purpose of Section 2(15) of the Act the object and purpose of the Section must be kept in mind and a broad and extended definition of business would not be applicable for the purpose of interpreting and applying the fir…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 448/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…tion of this judgment and the same is very well applicable to the facts of present case. The Hon’ble Court, in the course of stated judgment, has elaborately considered its own decisions rendered in: - (i) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s DGIT (347 ITR 99; 19/09/2011) (ii) Bureau of Indian Standards V/s DGIT (2013 212 Taxman 210) (iii) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s DGIT [358 ITR 91 04/07/2013] (iv) M/s GSI India V/s DGIT (2013 219 Taxman 205 26/09/2013) CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 In another case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s DGIT [358 ITR 91 04/07/2013], it w…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 447/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…tion of this judgment and the same is very well applicable to the facts of present case. The Hon’ble Court, in the course of stated judgment, has elaborately considered its own decisions rendered in: - (i) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s DGIT (347 ITR 99; 19/09/2011) (ii) Bureau of Indian Standards V/s DGIT (2013 212 Taxman 210) (iii) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s DGIT [358 ITR 91 04/07/2013] (iv) M/s GSI India V/s DGIT (2013 219 Taxman 205 26/09/2013) CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 In another case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s DGIT [358 ITR 91 04/07/2013], it w…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 446/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…tion of this judgment and the same is very well applicable to the facts of present case. The Hon’ble Court, in the course of stated judgment, has elaborately considered its own decisions rendered in: - (i) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s DGIT (347 ITR 99; 19/09/2011) (ii) Bureau of Indian Standards V/s DGIT (2013 212 Taxman 210) (iii) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s DGIT [358 ITR 91 04/07/2013] (iv) M/s GSI India V/s DGIT (2013 219 Taxman 205 26/09/2013) CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 In another case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s DGIT [358 ITR 91 04/07/2013], it w…

DCIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Bureau of Text Books, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7075/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anubha Malwani, CA
Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2

…. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 317 (SC), CIT vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board (2000) 244 CTR 667 (Raj), Secondary Board of Education vs. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 408 (Ori), Institution of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) (2012) 347 ITR 99 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.P. Rajya Pathya Pustak Nigam (2009) 226 CTR 497 (MP), General of Income Tax (Exemptions) (2014) 362 ITR 436 (Del), examined the question of interpretation placed on the word 'education' occurring in section 2(15) of the Act, and reached the conclusion that merely because the assessee had generated profits ou…

ACIT(E), Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs. Professional Assistance for Development Action, New Delhi

ITA 3313/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ed on the various case laws being- GS1 India vs. DGIT (Exemption), 360 ITR 138 (Delhi) (2014). i) Bureau of India Standards vs. DGIT (E), 358 ITR 78 (Delhi) (2013). ii) iii) Director of Income Tax (E) vs. ICAI, 347 ITR 86 (Delhi)(2012). iv) ICAI vs. DGIT(E) 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) (2012). 4.1.3 As per the contention of the appellant its activities fall under the category of relief of poor and, in support, the appellant has relied on the objects of the society as per the Memorandum of Association, details of which are at para5 of the appellant's submissions reproduced above. It is seen from the objects that the socie…

Southern Gujarat Chamber Trade & Industry Development Centre, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 910/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah & Ms ChaitaliFor Respondent: Mr. O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 234BSection 254(1)

…ITA No. 910/AHD/2016 Assessment Year.2011-12 Southern Gujarat Chamber Trade & Industry Development Centre INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 910/AHD/2016 for Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Virtual Court Hearing) Southern Gujarat Chamber The Income Tax Officer, Trade & Industry Vs. Exemption-Ward, Development Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil “Samruddhi”, Near Makkai Hospital Majuragate Surat. Bridge Nanpura, Surat-395001. PAN No. AAICS 8963 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rasesh Shah & Ms Chaital…

Agra Development Authority, Agra vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 124Section 142Section 153

…That we need to examine what is meant by the expression "commercial or business". The words 'trade', 'commerce' and 'business' were enumerated and elucidated in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Director-General of Income-tax (Exemptions) [2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) as under: "Trade, as per the Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2nd edition), means, amongst others, "a means of earning one's living, occupation or work. In Black's Law Dictionary, "trade" means a business which a person has learnt or carries on for procuring subsistence or profit ; occupation or employment, etc. The meaning of "…

ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1(2), New Delhi vs. Indian Olympic Association, New Delhi

ITA 1651/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 2(15)

…of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business as mentioned in the first proviso to Sec. 2(15) would be satisfied if profit making is not the real object. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ICAI Vs Director General of Income Tax (Exem) 347 ITR 99 had the occasion to consider the grievance of the ICAI which was denied exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the Act because in the opinion of the DGIT (Exem.) the institute was holding coaching classes and therefore was not an educational institution, consequently the institute was covered under the last limb of charitable purpose i.e. advance of any ot…

Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi vs. ACIT Circle-4, Agra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 149/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…he aforesaid activities is not a charitable institution under the residual category of advancement of any other object of general public utility. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions) [2011] 13 taxmann.com 175/202 Taxman 1/[2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) referring to the meaning of the terms "commerce" and "business", it was held as under:— "33. Section 2(15) defines the term 'charitable purpose'. Therefore, while construing the term 'business' for the said Section, the object and purpose of the Section has to be kept in mind. We do not think that a very broad and extended definition of t…

ACIT Circle-4, Agra vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 355/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…he aforesaid activities is not a charitable institution under the residual category of advancement of any other object of general public utility. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions) [2011] 13 taxmann.com 175/202 Taxman 1/[2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) referring to the meaning of the terms "commerce" and "business", it was held as under:— "33. Section 2(15) defines the term 'charitable purpose'. Therefore, while construing the term 'business' for the said Section, the object and purpose of the Section has to be kept in mind. We do not think that a very broad and extended definition of t…

Jhasi Development Authority, Jhansi vs. Dy. C.I.T., Circle-4, Agra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 256/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…he aforesaid activities is not a charitable institution under the residual category of advancement of any other object of general public utility. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions) [2011] 13 taxmann.com 175/202 Taxman 1/[2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) referring to the meaning of the terms "commerce" and "business", it was held as under:— "33. Section 2(15) defines the term 'charitable purpose'. Therefore, while construing the term 'business' for the said Section, the object and purpose of the Section has to be kept in mind. We do not think that a very broad and extended definition of t…

ACIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Bureau of Text Books, New Delhi

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

ITA 242/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 240/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 242/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit(E), Vs Delhi Bureau Of Text Books, Circle-1(1), 25/2, Institutional Area, Pankha New Delhi Road, D-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatd4122G Assessee By : Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 317 (SC), C1T vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board (2000) 244 CTR 667 (Raj), Secondary Board of Education vs. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 408 (Ori), Institution of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) (2012) 347 ITR 99 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.P. Rajya Pathya Pustak Nigam (2009) 226 CTR 497 (MP), General of Income Tax (Exemptions) (2014) 362 ITR 436 (Del), examined the question of interpretation placed on the word 'education' occurring in section 2(15) of the Ad, and reached the conclusion that merely because the assessee had generated profits out…

ACIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Bureau of Text Books, New Delhi

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

ITA 241/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 240/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 242/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit(E), Vs Delhi Bureau Of Text Books, Circle-1(1), 25/2, Institutional Area, Pankha New Delhi Road, D-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatd4122G Assessee By : Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 317 (SC), C1T vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board (2000) 244 CTR 667 (Raj), Secondary Board of Education vs. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 408 (Ori), Institution of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) (2012) 347 ITR 99 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.P. Rajya Pathya Pustak Nigam (2009) 226 CTR 497 (MP), General of Income Tax (Exemptions) (2014) 362 ITR 436 (Del), examined the question of interpretation placed on the word 'education' occurring in section 2(15) of the Ad, and reached the conclusion that merely because the assessee had generated profits out…

ACIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Bureau of Text Books, New Delhi

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

ITA 240/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 240/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 242/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit(E), Vs Delhi Bureau Of Text Books, Circle-1(1), 25/2, Institutional Area, Pankha New Delhi Road, D-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatd4122G Assessee By : Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 317 (SC), C1T vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board (2000) 244 CTR 667 (Raj), Secondary Board of Education vs. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 408 (Ori), Institution of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) (2012) 347 ITR 99 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.P. Rajya Pathya Pustak Nigam (2009) 226 CTR 497 (MP), General of Income Tax (Exemptions) (2014) 362 ITR 436 (Del), examined the question of interpretation placed on the word 'education' occurring in section 2(15) of the Ad, and reached the conclusion that merely because the assessee had generated profits out…

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

…tract those activities which are truly in the nature of trade, commerce or business but are carried out under the guise of activities in the nature of public utility'. 13. Delhi High Court in case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT [2012] 347 ITR 99/[20111.202 Taxman 1/13 taxmann.Com 175 considered these very provisions in the context of activities of the Institute of Chartered Accountants holding that the fundamental or dominant function of the Institute was to exercise overall control and regulate the activities of the members/enrolled chartered accountants and merely because the Institute…

DCIT(E)- Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs. Association of State Road Transport Undertaking, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4741/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…t but to pursue activities in furtherance of its objects of general public utility then it must be recognized as an institution established for charitable purposes. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountant of India vs. DGI 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) held that the object of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is to include any transaction for a fee or money and the activity would be business if it is undertaken with the profit motive but in some cases this fact must be determinative and the profit motive test should be specified and viewed in the context of section 10 (23C) (…

DCIT(E)- Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs. Association of State Road Transport Undertaking, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4740/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…t but to pursue activities in furtherance of its objects of general public utility then it must be recognized as an institution established for charitable purposes. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountant of India vs. DGI 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) held that the object of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is to include any transaction for a fee or money and the activity would be business if it is undertaken with the profit motive but in some cases this fact must be determinative and the profit motive test should be specified and viewed in the context of section 10 (23C) (…

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)

…of Hon Delhi high court in case of GS1 V DGIT (exemption) 360 ITR 138 (Delhi) (2014) wherein, though the issue pertained to AY 2008- 09, the Hon high court also discussed the provisions w.e.f. 1-4-2009. Hon High court also considered the decision rendered in 347 ITR 99, which is relied up on by revenue. The Hon high court held that “Statutory provisions 12. In the present case, the period in question is both prior and subsequent to the amendments made applicable, vide Finance Act, 2008, with effect from April 1, 2009. Before deciding the contentions of the parties we would 23 I.T.A. No.2235/DEL/2019 like to fi…