Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 2(15), Section 12, Section 12A, Section 13(8), Section 143(3).

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association

Q: How many judgments cite Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association?

328 judgments on BharatTax cite Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (121 ITR 1), spanning 2001 to 2026.

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 372,241 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 11 Section 2(15)Section 12 Section 12A Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 12AA Section 10(20A)

Issues it is cited on

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

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

Iti Education Committee, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemption), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 425/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, ACIT(DR)

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…imate test is whether on an overall view of the matter in the concerned assessment year the object is to make profit as opposed to educating persons.' 7. To the above principles, one further test as laid down in CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Assn. [1978] 121 ITR 1/[1979] 2 Taxman 501 (SC) and culled out in American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute v. CBDT [2008] 301 ITR 86/170 Taxman 306 (SC) may be added which is as follows:— "In order to ascertain whether the institute is carried on with the object of making profit or not it is the duty of the prescribed authority to ascertain whether the…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

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

ITA 2874/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

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

…nt Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) 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…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

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

ITA 2873/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

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

M/S. Orissa Cricket Association, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

ITA 210/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

Section 120Section 12ASection 254(2)

…object of general public utility". Following are the relevant extracts of the said judgment: "Unfortunately, for the revenue, the court has, in a five-judges Bench, by a majority of 4 to 1, in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980} 121 ITR 1 (SC) reversed these two decisions in Loka Shikshana Trust case [1975] 101 ITR 234 (SC) and the Indian Chamber of Commerce case [1975] 101 ITR 796 (SC). The court has approved of the observations of Beg J. in his separate but concurring judgment in the Loka Shikshana Trust case that (p. 256) " if the profit must necessarily feed a charitable purpose…

S.D.Patel Education Research Foundation, Baroda vs. The CIT-III, Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/AHD/2014[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiya)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT/ D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. No: 3443/AHD/2014 (Assessment Year: N.A.) S.D. Patel Education V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- Research Foundation, 2nd 7 (2), Ahmedabad Floor, Prasanna House, Associated Society, Near Akota Stadium, Vadodara- 390020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMTS4464N Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Respondent by : Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT/ D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 07 -12-2017 Date of Pronouncement : 18 -12-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMB…

Snr Sons Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3127/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Vijayaprabha,JCIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3127/Mds./2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-14) M/s.SNR Sons Charitable Trust, The DCIT(Exemptions), Vs. 395,Sarojini Naidu Road, Race Course Road, Sihdapudur, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 044. PAN AABTS 1080 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Saroj Kumar Parida,Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respond…

Builders Association of India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2266/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Shamim Yahyaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Builders Association Of Income Tax Officer India, (Exemptions) – I(1), 7Th Floor, Commerce Centre, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Tardeo Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 034 Parel, Pan: Aaatb0212F Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer M/S. Builders Association Of (Exemptions) – I(1), India, Room No.508, 5Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Commerce Centre, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Tardeo Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 034 Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aaatb0212F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)(ii)Section 2(15)

…ness. " Thereafter the Hon'ble High Court referred and analyzed the meaning of trade, business, commerce which have been elaborated by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art and Silk Manufacturers Association 121 ITR 1, and other Supreme Court decisions; Sole Trustee Loka Shikshan Trust 101. ITR 234, State of Punjab vs. Bajaj Electrical Ltd. (1968) 2 see 536, Khodey Distillary Ltd. vs. 4 ITA No.2266/M/2015 & ITA No.4694/M/2015 M/s. Builders Association of India State of Kerala (1975) 1 see 574 and CST vs. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 4 see 57 and also referred to…

M/S. Lakshmi Ammal Memorial Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2852/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.RFor Respondent: 20.06.2017

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2Section 2(15)

…of the Act would apply only to a case where the business is not held under trust. Thus, there is difference between 9 8. This distinction was recognized by the Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 wherein it was observed that if a business undertaking is held under trust for a charitable purpose, the income therefrom would be entitled to the exemption u/s. 11(1) of the Act. In the present case, the running of Kalyana Mandapam was not held under trust, but it was business commenced/carried on by the after its formation, it cannot be said t…

M/S. Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association, Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

ITA 782/IND/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

Section 13Section 2Section 2(15)

…ed / arisen, the same could not be presumed that such activities were carried out with a commercial intent. In this context the assessee has relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of ACIT vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association 121 ITR 1 (SC). (vi) The assessee relied upon the various ITAT’s decision especially Rajkot, ITAT whereby on similar issue Commissioner of Income Tax order for cancelling registration u/s 12AA (3) was set-aside. (vii) The assessee’s case is quite different to that of the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association accordingly the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT…

M/S. Roland Educational and Charitable Trust, Ganjam vs. Principal CCIT, Bhubaneswar

ITA 433/CTK/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhroland Educational & Charitable Trust, Vs. Principal Cit, 2Nd Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Berhampur, Odisha. District – Ganjam (Odisha).

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 10

…nal Society (supra) held that to determine whether an educational institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, three Supreme Court judgments, namely, Addl.CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures Association – (1980) 121 ITR 1, Aditanar ITA No.433/CTK./2015 19 Educational Institution vs. Addl. CIT – (1997) 224 ITR 310 (SC) and American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute vs. CBDT – (2008) 301 ITR 86 (SC) would apply. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that 13th Proviso to section 10(23C) is of great importance in determining the issue that the AO must c…

Roland Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ganjam vs. Principal CCIT, Bhubaneswar

ITA 432/CTK/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhroland Educational & Charitable Trust, Vs. Principal Cit, 2Nd Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Berhampur, Odisha. District – Ganjam (Odisha).

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 10

The Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5093/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 26

…sions “ business”, “trade” or “commerce”.” 52. With regard to the Surat Art Silk case (supra), this court, in ICAI (II) (supra) observed as under:- “69. In the case of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax 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 object of the activity, the purpose, though an objec…

M/S. the Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi vs. DDIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1325/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Jain & Sh. MadhurFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

ACIT(Exemption), Jaipur vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 32

…to be existing solely for educational purposes and it would really be for profit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court negated the said line of arguments put forward by Revenue and referred to its earlier decisions rendered in case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturing (121 ITR 1), Aditanar Educational Institution (224 ITR 310) and American Hotel & lodging Assn. Educational Institute (301 ITR 86) and laid down the following principles in law as set out in paragraph 11 of its decision which reads as under: “11..the law common to section 10(23C)(iiiad) and (vi) may be summed up as follows: (1) Where an educational institutio…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 Series 14I, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…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 Vs. 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…

Patanjali Yogpeeth (Nyas), Delhi vs. ADIT(Exemption), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

…e predominant objects of the assessee in detail supported with activities done by it from which no inference can be drawn that assessee is in trade, commerce and business. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfg. Association 121 ITR 1 (SC) has been pleased to hold that where an activity was not pervaded by profit motive, but was carried on primarily for serving the dominant charitable purposes, it would not be correct to describe it as an activity for profit. But where an activity was carried on with the predominant object of earning profit, it would be an activity for profits,…

Gandhi College of Pharmacy, Karnal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3476/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 3476/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Gandhi College Of Pharmacy, Vs Acit, Near Iti Chowk, G. T. Road, Circle, Karnal Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5629D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.03.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Action Of A.O. In Holding That The Assesses Is Not Eligible For Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(Iiiad) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., & Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(31)Section 263(1)

…h year, which is being done by your good self in A.Y. 2004-05 since the exemption has to be evaluated each year, on the basis of facts & circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Addl. CIT Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer Association (1980) 121 ITR 1(SC) held as under:- "When the purpose of a trust or institution is advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object itself and not its accomplishment or carrying out which must not involve the carrying of any activity for profits." Merely there is an increase in assets & fees or there is profit cannot be held as reason for disa…

M/S. Hero'S Education and Welfare Society, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 232/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 68

…this proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Mfg. I.T.A.No. 232/Ind/2015-A.Y.2010-11 M/S.HERO’S EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL. Page 6 of 29 Association, 121 ITR 1 ( S.C.) and Federation of Indian Chambers and Commerce Industries, 130 ITR 186 ( S.C.) in which it was held “if the dominant or primary purpose of the association is charitable, the subsidiary object would not mitigate against the charitable character. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further placed reliance in the case of Harf C…

Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

ITA 355/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Mumbai Mazdoor Acit, Sabha, बनाम/ Central-43, 6Th Floor, Kennedy House, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaonkar Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400020 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaan5354N

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 234B(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, फी, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s Mumbai Mazdoor ACIT, Sabha, बनाम/ Central-43, 6th Floor, Kennedy House, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaonkar Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400020 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAAAN5354N ITA NOs.353 to 355/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 to 2007-08 M/s Mumbai Mazdoor ACIT, बना…

Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

ITA 354/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 234B(3)