ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana

300 ITR 214Supreme Court of India2008#832 most cited

What is ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana authority for?

Once an institution receives registration under Section 12AA, the Assessing Officer must compute its income as per Section 11, focusing only on the application of income and not re-examining the charitable nature of its activities. The Supreme Court also clarified the meaning and scope of 'general public utility' under Section 2(15).

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana · Section 12AA registration · Section 11 income computation · charitable trust exemption · general public utility · Section 2(15) · AO powers · post-registration assessment · application of income · charitable purpose

Also reported as

170 Taxmann 61214 SCC 169

Sections most often in play

Section 12ASection 11Section 12Section 12AASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 13Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 10(22)section 35acsection 11(4)section 10(20)section 12aa(3)section 115bbcsection 13(1)(d)section 13(3)section 35aanonymous donationsection 2(45)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 68/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 66, 67 & 68/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2012-13 & 13-14. cuke Income Tax Officer Rajasthan Cricket Association, Vs. (Exemptions) North Block, SMS Stadium, Ward-1, Jan path, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAATR 0798 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 67/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 66, 67 & 68/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2012-13 & 13-14. cuke Income Tax Officer Rajasthan Cricket Association, Vs. (Exemptions) North Block, SMS Stadium, Ward-1, Jan path, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAATR 0798 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 66/JPR/2022[2005]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 66, 67 & 68/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2012-13 & 13-14. cuke Income Tax Officer Rajasthan Cricket Association, Vs. (Exemptions) North Block, SMS Stadium, Ward-1, Jan path, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAATR 0798 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. M/S Nitin Spinners Ltd

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA/30/2019HC Rajasthan23 May 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Sumesh Bajaj alongwith Mr. Rishabh
Section 12Section 2(15)Section 80Section 80G

…t in 7 the matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) v. Sant Girdhar Anand Parmhans Sant Ashram, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 7109, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surat City Gymkhana, (2008) 14 SCC 169 and the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Deputy Director of Income-Tax (Exemption), (2011) 335 ITR 575. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with appeal. 10. In Hiralal Bhagwati (supra), the G…

Shri Digamber Jain, Bhopal vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

ITA 289/IND/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ab)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…ffect from F.Y. 2016-17. But same was not applicable on the are for the benefit of public at large. 5. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1.Mehta Jiveraj Makandas & Parekh Trust, ITAT, Mumbai ITA No.2212/Mum/2010 2. CIT Vs Surat City Gymkhana(2008) 216 CTR 23(SC) 3. Income tax Officer, (E) 1 (1), Mumbai v. Bhansali Trust [2015] 63 taxmann.com 56 (Mumbai-Trib.) 4. Deccan Gymkhana (Oldesty Trust) v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 459/131 Taxman 279 (Bom) 6. Per contra, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. CIT(E). Digamber Jain ITA No.287 & 289/Ind/2020 7. We have heard rival contentions and peruse…

Shri Digamber Jain, Chulgiri Bhopal vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

ITA 287/IND/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ab)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…ffect from F.Y. 2016-17. But same was not applicable on the are for the benefit of public at large. 5. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1.Mehta Jiveraj Makandas & Parekh Trust, ITAT, Mumbai ITA No.2212/Mum/2010 2. CIT Vs Surat City Gymkhana(2008) 216 CTR 23(SC) 3. Income tax Officer, (E) 1 (1), Mumbai v. Bhansali Trust [2015] 63 taxmann.com 56 (Mumbai-Trib.) 4. Deccan Gymkhana (Oldesty Trust) v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 459/131 Taxman 279 (Bom) 6. Per contra, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. CIT(E). Digamber Jain ITA No.287 & 289/Ind/2020 7. We have heard rival contentions and peruse…

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 35, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2851/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2851 & 2852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) The Board Of Control For बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-6(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Cricket In India Vs. Wankhede Stadium, „D‟ Road, Building, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0186A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2005- 06 & 2006-07. Ita. No.2851/Mum/2017 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2005- 06. Ita Nos. 2851 & 2852/M/2017 A.Ys.2005-06 & 2006-07 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2851 & 2852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) The Board of Control for बिधम/ DCIT Central Circle-6(2) 19th Floor, Air India Cricket in India Vs. Wankhede Stadium, „D‟ road, Building, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATB0186A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue by: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 14/12/20…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…TAT (Pg. 235 of FPB), thereby restoring registration u/s.12AA and Department appeal to Jurisdictional High Court has been dismissed (LPB Page 665 to 674). Thus, as of today, Appellant is duly registered as charitable trust u/s.12AA. 3. In Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) (SC) (Pg. 18 of LPB) the Supreme Court has held that registration of a trust u/s 12A once done is a fait accompli and the Assessing officer cannot make further enquiry into the objects of the trust. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) that the activities of the Appellant are not in the nature of advancement of general public utility is beyond h…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…TAT (Pg. 235 of FPB), thereby restoring registration u/s.12AA and Department appeal to Jurisdictional High Court has been dismissed (LPB Page 665 to 674). Thus, as of today, Appellant is duly registered as charitable trust u/s.12AA. 3. In Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) (SC) (Pg. 18 of LPB) the Supreme Court has held that registration of a trust u/s 12A once done is a fait accompli and the Assessing officer cannot make further enquiry into the objects of the trust. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) that the activities of the Appellant are not in the nature of advancement of general public utility is beyond h…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…TAT (Pg. 235 of FPB), thereby restoring registration u/s.12AA and Department appeal to Jurisdictional High Court has been dismissed (LPB Page 665 to 674). Thus, as of today, Appellant is duly registered as charitable trust u/s.12AA. 3. In Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) (SC) (Pg. 18 of LPB) the Supreme Court has held that registration of a trust u/s 12A once done is a fait accompli and the Assessing officer cannot make further enquiry into the objects of the trust. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) that the activities of the Appellant are not in the nature of advancement of general public utility is beyond h…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…TAT (Pg. 235 of FPB), thereby restoring registration u/s.12AA and Department appeal to Jurisdictional High Court has been dismissed (LPB Page 665 to 674). Thus, as of today, Appellant is duly registered as charitable trust u/s.12AA. 3. In Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) (SC) (Pg. 18 of LPB) the Supreme Court has held that registration of a trust u/s 12A once done is a fait accompli and the Assessing officer cannot make further enquiry into the objects of the trust. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) that the activities of the Appellant are not in the nature of advancement of general public utility is beyond h…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…TAT (Pg. 235 of FPB), thereby restoring registration u/s.12AA and Department appeal to Jurisdictional High Court has been dismissed (LPB Page 665 to 674). Thus, as of today, Appellant is duly registered as charitable trust u/s.12AA. 3. In Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) (SC) (Pg. 18 of LPB) the Supreme Court has held that registration of a trust u/s 12A once done is a fait accompli and the Assessing officer cannot make further enquiry into the objects of the trust. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) that the activities of the Appellant are not in the nature of advancement of general public utility is beyond h…

ITO (E) -1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat In Its Own Case In A.Y.2011-12 Which Is Pending For Adjudication."

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(3)Section 25

…are as under :- Gro Ground by Department Case Laws relied upon und No. 1 Denial of exemption u/s 11 1. ITAT Order passed in Assessee's own case for AY by AO without appreciating 2011-12 (ITA No. 4065/Mum/2019) that the department has 2. Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) (SC) challenged the order of 3. Hiralal Bhagwati v. CIT(246ITR 188)(Guj.) CIT(A) before ITAT for AY 4. DIT(I-) v. Gemological Institute of India [2019] 263 2011-12 Taxman 348 (SC) 2 CIT(A) erred in holding that 5. United Commercial Bank v. CIT (240 ITR 355)(SC) interest income is 6. J.K Bankers v. CIT (94 ITR 107) (All. HC) assessable on receip…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…oses. Once the Commissioner had made the determination that the trust was a charitable one, the AO is not entitled to re-examine the question as to whether the trust is charitable or not, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surat City Gymkhana 300 ITR 214 (SC). The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sonepat Hindu Educational and Charitable Society Vs. CIT (2005) 278 ITR 262 have held that "Registration of an Institution u/s 12A is sufficient proof of it being established for charitable purpose." Similar view has been affirmed in the decisions of CIT Vs. Ootacamund Gymkhana Club 11…

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

…, legally, be invoked during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A. Ld. CIT(A) has arbitrarily differentiated the authoritative judicial pronouncement in the case of Hira Lal Bhagwati vs. CIT [(2000) 246 ITR 188 (Guj)] and ACIT VS Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 170 Taxmann 612 (SC). 3.Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in holding the activities of the appellant as commercial in utter disregard to the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All.)]. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is al…

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)

…, legally, be invoked during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A. Ld. CIT(A) has arbitrarily differentiated the authoritative judicial pronouncement in the case of Hira Lal Bhagwati vs. CIT [(2000) 246 ITR 188 (Guj)] and ACIT VS Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 170 Taxmann 612 (SC). The order of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and perverse. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in holding the activities of the appellant as commercial in utter disregard to the authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All.)]. Ld.…

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)

…, legally, be invoked during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A. Ld. CIT(A) has arbitrarily differentiated the authoritative judicial pronouncement in the case of Hira Lal Bhagwati vs. CIT [(2000) 246 ITR 188 (Guj)] and ACIT VS Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 170 Taxmann 612 (SC). The order of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and perverse. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in holding the activities of the appellant as commercial in utter disregard to the authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All.)]. Ld.…

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)

…, legally, be invoked during the subsistence of registration u/s 12A. Ld. CIT(A) has arbitrarily differentiated the authoritative judicial pronouncement in the case of Hira Lal Bhagwati vs. CIT [(2000) 246 ITR 188 (Guj)] and ACIT VS Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 170 Taxmann 612 (SC). The order of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and perverse. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in holding the activities of the appellant as commercial in utter disregard to the authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 246 (All.)]. Ld.…

M/S. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur vs. Add.CIT. Range-2, Jaipur

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

…as the promotion, control, regulation and, encouragement of specified sports and games." ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. 34. Thereafter taken into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 14 SCC 169, CIT-1, Jodhpur Vs Jodhpur Development Authority (2016) 287 CRT 473 (Raj), Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs DIT (2013) 86 CCH 212, DIT(E) Vs The Chembur Gymkhana (2012) 345 ITR 86 and DIT(E) Vs Khan Gymkhana (2016) 385 ITR 162 (Bom) has decided the matter in favour of the assessee and against the department and the findings and the directions of…

Indian Beauty and Hygiene Association, Mumbai vs. ITO(E)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 26

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC–II” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.566/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Indian Beauty And Hygiene Association 504, Midas, 5th Floor, Sahar Plaza Complex, M.V. Road, Near Kohinoor ……………. Appellant Hotel, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 PAN – AAATHI1252J v/s Income Tax Officer (Exemp.) ……………. Respondent Ward–3, Mumbai Revenue by : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi Assessee by : Shri Madhur Aggarwal Date of Hearing – 09.11.2020 Date of Order – 25.11.2020 O R D E R Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 30th Nove…