Addl. CIT v. Ahmadabad Mill

106 ITR 725Reported decision1977#18719 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Ahmadabad Mill

ALL INDIA RUBBER INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E)1(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 247/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

…urt in the case of "CIT V/s Western India Chamber of Commerce Ltd 13 ITR 67 (Bom)" was not applicable to the assessee and failing to appreciate the distinguishing facts from the decision of the Gujrat High Court in the "Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association Case (106 ITR 725) (Guj)". and erroneously concluding that the assessee was not formed with the object of general public utility and holding that it was a "mutual association" only for its members. 5. In disregarding the submissions made by the assessee regarding its activities from inception and the continuous enjoyment of the exemption U/s 11 of the Act, the l…

ALL INDIA RUBBER INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) II(2), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3994/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

…urt in the case of "CIT V/s Western India Chamber of Commerce Ltd 13 ITR 67 (Bom)" was not applicable to the assessee and failing to appreciate the distinguishing facts from the decision of the Gujrat High Court in the "Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association Case (106 ITR 725) (Guj)". and erroneously concluding that the assessee was not formed with the object of general public utility and holding that it was a "mutual association" only for its members. 5. In disregarding the submissions made by the assessee regarding its activities from inception and the continuous enjoyment of the exemption U/s 11 of the Act, the l…

ALL INDIA RUBBER INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1368/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

…urt in the case of "CIT V/s Western India Chamber of Commerce Ltd 13 ITR 67 (Bom)" was not applicable to the assessee and failing to appreciate the distinguishing facts from the decision of the Gujrat High Court in the "Ahmedabad Mill Owners Association Case (106 ITR 725) (Guj)". and erroneously concluding that the assessee was not formed with the object of general public utility and holding that it was a "mutual association" only for its members. 5. In disregarding the submissions made by the assessee regarding its activities from inception and the continuous enjoyment of the exemption U/s 11 of the Act, the l…

DDIT (E), DELHI vs. M/S. ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 6352/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 11Section 2(15)

…ests of an activity which is of general public utility goes to the root of the whole problem as laid down in Andhra Chamber of Commerce(supra) and by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Ahmadabad Mill owners’ Association, reported in (1977) 106 ITR 725, 738 (Guj)]. Applying the ratio laid down in the above cases to the facts of the present case, we have no demur to hold that the objects of the Respondent Assessee are aimed at improving Football being the national game and aiming at building of world class teams having international standards. The question of private gain or profit motive cannot…

Addl. CIT v. Ahmadabad Mill (106 ITR 725) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax