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 (121 ITR 1)

Q: 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.

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.

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6051/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charity-Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC). 15. The present case in our view is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. [1986] 159 ITR 1 in which it has been held that since the Corporation was established for the purpose of providing efficient transport system, having no profit motive, though it earns income in th…

Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exe)-1 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5832/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5832/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Bombay Chamber Of Commerce & The Income-Tax Officer Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, 4, (Exemptions)-1(1), फनाभ/ Room No. 508, 5 Th Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcb2270M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi & Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Drs’ ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi &

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

…curring at the end were omitted by the Finance Act, 1983 with effect from 01.04.1984. 14. We noted that the term "not involving any activity for profit" came up for discussion before the Supreme Court in ACIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (121 ITR 1) (SC). The majority view was that the condition that the purpose should not involve the carrying on of any activity for-profit would be satisfied if profit-making is not the real object. The theory or dominant or primary object of the trust has, therefore, been treated to be the determining factor, even in regard to the fourth bead of charity, viz…

Mesers Shri Swami Shankarnath Parvat Charitable and Welfare Trust, Kapurthala vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 602/ASR/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 602/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: N.A.

Section 12A

…t be motivated by a profit objective, but must be undertaken for the purpose of advancement or carrying out of the charitable purpose. Rather, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC), in order to ascertain as to whether a trust or an institution is carried on with the object of making profit or not, it is the duty of the prescribed authority to ascertain whether the balance of income is applied wholly and exclusively to objects for which such trust or institution had been established. In our considered view, where an educa…

D.C.I.T, Circle-1(Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/S Om Prakash Bansal Charitable Trust, Jammu

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 340/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

…ety Vs Dy. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 35 ITR 184 (Bombay), the Bombay High Court has expressed a view in line with the Punjab and Haryana High Court view, following the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association case [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC). In view of the aforementioned judicial decision, I hold that the application of surplus for capital investment is no ground to deny exemption to the appellant trust in so far the Assessing Officer could not point out any instance where the capital investment had been made for objectives other than those of the appellant trust. Further, the Ho…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/S Om Prakash Bansal Charitable Trust, Jammu

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

…ety Vs Dy. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 35 ITR 184 (Bombay), the Bombay High Court has expressed a view in line with the Punjab and Haryana High Court view, following the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association case [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC). In view of the aforementioned judicial decision, I hold that the application of surplus for capital investment is no ground to deny exemption to the appellant trust in so far the Assessing Officer could not point out any instance where the capital investment had been made for objectives other than those of the appellant trust. Further, the Ho…

M/S Sant Shri Mahesh Muni Ji Borewale Educational Welfare, Moga vs. Comm. of Income Tax ( Examption), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/ASR/2017[0]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2016-17

Section 11Section 12Section 12A

…The observation of the Delhi Public School Society* [2018] 92 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)are as under:- “23. Likewise, the test to determine the predominant objective was highlighted earlier, in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[1979] 2 Taxman 501 (SC), by the application of which it was to be adjudged whether the institution existed solely for education and not for profit. This point was re-iterated in Venu Charitable Society (supra) 246 Taxman 396 (Delhi) as follows: "18. The incidental carrying on of commercial activities is subject to certain conditions stipulated und…

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)

…s in South Gujarat. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that income of the assessee from renting out of exhibition centre, the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1, held that when the object of a trust was carrying on of an object of general public utility, it is that object of general public utility which must not involve the carrying on of an activity for profit. It was pointed out that it was immaterial how the money for achieving or implementing such purpose was found. Whether, that money was obtained by…