Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association

121 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1980#232 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association authority for?

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

328

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,249 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Addl CIT v Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association · Surat Art Silk · Section 2(15) · Section 11 · charitable purpose · general public utility · dominant object · incidental profit · deployment of profits · unamended Section 2(15) · Section 12 · Section 13(8)

Also reported as

2 Taxmann 501

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 12AASection 10(20A)

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 10(20a)advancement of general public utilitysection 13(8)section 52proviso to section 2(15)section 11(4a)section 2(15)cancellation of registrationsection 13(3)section 10(23c)section 11(1)

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Iilm Foundation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2871/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

…ra 19 & 20 on page 260]; (c) concurred with the decisions of the Delhi HC in the case of Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) V. CIT 353 ITR 320 (Del) which followed the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association: 121 ITR 1 (SC) [refer para 24 on page 265]. 29. Without prejudice to submissions made above, he alternatively submitted that even assuming there was a violation of section 13 then entire exemption under section 11 and 12 cannot be forfeited and the exemption should have been denied only to this extent of expenditure/ income amount of alleged violation under…

ADIT (E), New Delhi vs. Iilm Foundation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2675/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

…ra 19 & 20 on page 260]; (c) concurred with the decisions of the Delhi HC in the case of Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) V. CIT 353 ITR 320 (Del) which followed the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association: 121 ITR 1 (SC) [refer para 24 on page 265]. 29. Without prejudice to submissions made above, he alternatively submitted that even assuming there was a violation of section 13 then entire exemption under section 11 and 12 cannot be forfeited and the exemption should have been denied only to this extent of expenditure/ income amount of alleged violation under…

Iilm Foundaion, New Delhi vs. ADIT (Exemption), New Delhi

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

ITA 1142/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

…ra 19 & 20 on page 260]; (c) concurred with the decisions of the Delhi HC in the case of Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) V. CIT 353 ITR 320 (Del) which followed the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association: 121 ITR 1 (SC) [refer para 24 on page 265]. 29. Without prejudice to submissions made above, he alternatively submitted that even assuming there was a violation of section 13 then entire exemption under section 11 and 12 cannot be forfeited and the exemption should have been denied only to this extent of expenditure/ income amount of alleged violation under…

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) &

…g on an activity for profit or not. 22. In Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon the earlier decisions in the matter of “additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk cloth Manufactures Association”, (19800 121 ITR 1 and “CIT Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra”, (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC), held that if predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity. 23. In Gujarat Maritime Board’s case (supra), the Hon’be Supreme Court after due consider…

Mannulal Jagannath Das Trust Hospital, Jabalpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/JAB/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Sept 2020AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Arora

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…itself is no criteria for denial of approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi), which is to be in terms of rule 11AA, for which reference was made during hearing to CIT v. Rajmala Education Society [2012] 65 DTR 307 (P&H) and Addl. CIT v. Surat Art silk Cloth Mfrs. Ass. [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC). (c) In view of the amendment to section 80G(5) by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 1.10.2009, an approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi) is to, unless specifically withdrawn, extend in perpetuity. Approvals expiring before 1.10.2009, even as explained by the Board Circular No.5/2010, dated 03.6.2010, will have to be renewed, and upon renewal, unless specifi…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…his Court in the judgment of this Court in Juggi Lai Kamlapat Bankers (supra) 7.8 Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given two landmark judgements on rules of construction. In the case of Addl.CIT vrs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association reported in 121 ITR 1 (SC) (paragraph 12), it has been held that where the meaning of statutory provision is plain, the said meaning must be given effect to. Where the language of statutory provision is ambiguous and capable of more than one constructions, that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to all the other provisions of enactment rathe…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…his Court in the judgment of this Court in Juggi Lai Kamlapat Bankers (supra) 7.8 Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given two landmark judgements on rules of construction. In the case of Addl.CIT vrs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association reported in 121 ITR 1 (SC) (paragraph 12), it has been held that where the meaning of statutory provision is plain, the said meaning must be given effect to. Where the language of statutory provision is ambiguous and capable of more than one constructions, that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to all the other provisions of enactment rathe…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…his Court in the judgment of this Court in Juggi Lai Kamlapat Bankers (supra) 7.8 Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given two landmark judgements on rules of construction. In the case of Addl.CIT vrs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association reported in 121 ITR 1 (SC) (paragraph 12), it has been held that where the meaning of statutory provision is plain, the said meaning must be given effect to. Where the language of statutory provision is ambiguous and capable of more than one constructions, that construction must be adopted which will give meaning and effect to all the other provisions of enactment rathe…

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)

…he assessee. The assessee has given enough evidences to show that profit earning is not the driving force or objective of the assessee. As the principal emerges from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Surat Art Silk Manufacturing Association 121 ITR 1 activity for the profit connotes that the predominant object of the activity must be the making of profit. It is not enough that as a matter of fact the activities results into profit. Where an activity is not pervaded by the profit motive but is carried on primarily for serving the charitable purposes, it would not be correct to describe it as an…

Shri Vijay Makhija S/O Shri Govind Ram Makhija vs. The Principal Commissioner of Tax-I

ITA/81/2019HC Rajasthan29 Jul 2020

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Chaudhary and Mr. Vijay ChawlaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr
Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 3Section 38Section 38(1)Section 72

…reme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority’s case (supra) has considered all its earlier judgments qua Section 2(15) of the 4 (1982) 2 SCC 542 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 151 : (1983) 140 ITR 1 5 (1965) 55 ITR 722 6 (1980) 2 SCC 31 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 170 : (1980) 121 ITR 1 Page 14 of 20 (Tax Case No.81/2019) Act of 1961 and summed up the conclusions as under: - “IV. Summation of conclusions 269. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of “charitable purpose” (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the lat…

Arya Kanya Mahavidyala, Narwana vs. ITO (E), Rohtak

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3573/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Arya Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Vs Ito (E), Near Singla Dharamshala, Rohtak. Patel Nagar, Narwana, Haryana. Pan: Aacaa4153D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Revenue By : Ms Shashi Kajli, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2020 Order

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Ms Shashi Kajli, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…s assessment framed is totally wrong, illegal and excessive in nature. 5. Because the action is being challenged for making addition of Rs. 14,98,371/- towards surplus while the assessee is fulfilling the test of predominant object pursuant to judgment (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC). 6. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law as having wrongly considered the CBDT notification dated 12.12.2014 which prescribed the Govt, grant which is 50% of the total receipts while prior to this there, is no such limit was prescribed under I.T. Act. That the above notification is not applicable on the assessee. Thus assessme…

Income Tax Officer-23(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securities Trust 2008 Series 14, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

ITA 4789/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 161Section 161(1)Section 61

…power of revocation only at the instance of the transferor. In support of the above contention the learned counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association 121 ITR 1 (SC) at page-17, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to examine the question as to whether the expression " advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" would mean that the charitable organisation cannot carry on any business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "I…

M/S.Bharathakshemam, Thrissur vs. The ITO, Thrissur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(bb)Section 2(15)

…r by carrying on an activity for profit or not. This departure in the case of Dharmodayam Company (1977) 109 ITR 527 9 I.T.A. No. 590/Coch/2019 was justified by the Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 on the ground that when Krishna lyer, J. made the observations regarding the Kerala High Court's decision in CIT vs. Dharmodayam (1974) 94 ITR 113, the facts in the latter decision were not raised before him. The decision in Dharmodayam (1974) 94 ITR 113 (Ker) was followed by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashoka Charities (1987) 1…

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Rajasthan Cricekt Association, 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 1356/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

…g on an activity for profit or not. 22. In Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon the earlier decisions in the matter of “additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk cloth Manufactures Association”, (19800 121 ITR 1 and “CIT Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra”, (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC), held that if predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity. 23. In Gujarat Maritime Board’s case (supra), the Hon’be Supreme Court after due consider…

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association, 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 1355/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

…g on an activity for profit or not. 22. In Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon the earlier decisions in the matter of “additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk cloth Manufactures Association”, (19800 121 ITR 1 and “CIT Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra”, (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC), held that if predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity. 23. In Gujarat Maritime Board’s case (supra), the Hon’be Supreme Court after due consider…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, (Exemption) Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Alok Singh, CIT.D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 2(15)

…organisation is charitable any incidental activity for furtherance of the object would not fall within the expressions business, trade or commerce. 69. In the case of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tan v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association: [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC), the Supreme Court held as under: The test which has, therefore, now to be applied is whether the predominant object of the activity involved in carrying out the object of general public utility is to subserve the charitable purpose or to earn profit. Where profit making is the predominant ITA Nos. 2425 to 2428/Ahd/17 [Jamnagar Area Developm…

Devki Devi Foundation, New Delhi vs. DIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 1027/DEL/2012[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: -- Devki Devi Foundation, Vs Dit (Exemptions), Plot No.15, 3Rd Floor, 2, Press Enclave Road, Saket, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatd5283G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2011 Of The Dit (Exemptions), Delhi Withdrawing Registration Granted Earlier U/S 12A Of The It Act Since Inception.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 12A

…exist for the purpose of profit, then, the assessee is entitled to claim registration/approval u/s 12A of the Act. For the above proposition, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers, 121 ITR 1 (SC); ii) Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT, 372 ITR 699 (SC); iii) CIT vs. Pulikkal Medical Foundation Pvt. Ltd., 210 ITR 299 (Ker); iv) Breach Candy Hospital Trust vs. CCIT, 322 ITR 246 (Bom); v) CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra, 130 ITR 28 (SC); 28 vi) CIT vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation: 159 ITR 1 (SC) vii) Victoria Te…

Iov Registered Valuers Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5787/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019
Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 8

…irector- General of Income-tax (Exemption) (2009) 183 Taxman 462(Delhi). 2. Delhi Escorts Skill Development versus CIT (exemption) 2019 (5) TMI 770-ITAT 3. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax , Gujrat Vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC). 4. Decisions referred in Perak 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the learned CIT(E) and submitted that the assessee is only conducting coaching classes for preparing the students for appearing in the examination conducted by the IBBI for Valuers and it is not engaged in providing any formal school…

ACIT(E), New Delhi vs. India International Centre, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5191/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Angad Gulati, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…make profit. In American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. CBDT [2008] 301 ITR 86 (SC), their Lordships have laid down the principle on following terms: - “In Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association reported in [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC), it has been held by this court that the test of predominant object of the activity is to be seen whether it exists solely for education and not to earn profit. However, the purpose would not lose its character merely because some profit arises from the activity. That, it is not possible to carry on educational activity in such a wav that the…

B P Marine Academy, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no 6 is allowed in favour of the Assessee

ITA 174/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…pugned Appellate Order and also examined courses conducted with the approval of DG Shipping. Apart from this, the ld. CIT(A) also considered the decision of Saint Lawrence Education Society [53 DTR 130(Del)] and Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [121 ITR 1 (SC)] which supports the case of the Assessee before us. We also find that the Assessee obtained various registrations for carrying out educational activities from the Regional Director, Western Region, MCA as filed at page No 140 of paper book, certificate u/s 12AA issued by the DIT(E), Mumbai filed at page No 141 of Paper book, renewal certificat…