Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO

129 ITR 295Supreme Court of India1981#1421 most cited

What is Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO authority for?

When determining if an activity serves charitable purposes for tax exemption, the primary consideration is whether its predominant object is to make a profit or to carry out charitable activities.

80

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,402 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO · predominant object test · charitable purposes · Section 2(15) advancement of general public utility · Section 11 income of trusts · profit making intention · charitable trusts tax exemption · section 13(8) · section 12A registration · mutuality principle

Also reported as

6 Taxmann 19

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 10(20A)Section 12ASection 260ASection 37
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)mutuality principlesection 13(8)section 10(20a)advancement of general public utilitysection 11(6)section 2(11)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(4a)cancellation of registrationsection 11(5)section 11(1)(d)

Judgments citing Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO

Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City Tamilnadu Police Canteen, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

ITA 2069/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri. V. Swaminathan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44Section 44A

…ct as under. "Business includes any trade commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture". 2. While interpreting the word business the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Barendra Prasad Ray vs. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295(SC) holds the word business to be of wide import and that it means activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person by the application of his labour or skill with a view to earning an income. The expression business does not necessarily mean trade or manufacture only. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raipur Manufacturing Com…

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 7113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…. in ITA No. 292/2014, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has analyzed in detail the definition of technical services. In this case, the various judgments of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. RD Aggarwal & Co. (1965) 56 ITR 20, Barendra Prasad Ray vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295, JK Ltd. vs. CBDT (1979) 118 ITR 312, Delhi, CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 139 Delhi etc. have been discussed and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the commission paid to overseas agents for export orders cannot be termed as fees for technical services. Moreover, the AO has not placed on record any material to show that the…

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi vs. Lucky Exports, New Delhi

Accordingly ground nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed

ITA 5502/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. P. Roy Chaudhuri, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Suman Malik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

…. in ITA No. 292/2014, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has analyzed in detail the definition of technical services. In this case, the various judgments of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. RD Aggarwal & Co. (1965) 56 ITR 20, Barendra Prasad Ray vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295, JK Ltd. vs. CBDT (1979) 118 ITR 312, Delhi, CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 139 Delhi etc. have been discussed and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the commission paid to overseas agents for export orders cannot be termed as fees for technical services. Moreover, the AO has not placed on record any material to show that the…

Metso Oyj, Finland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 616/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 56Section 9

…rt. It means almost anything which is an occupation or duty requiring attention as distinguished from sports or pleasure and is used in the sense of occupation continuously carried on for the purpose of profit. In the case of Barendra Prasad Roy vs ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), it was held by the Apex Court that the word business is of wide import and it means an activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person by the application of his labour and skill with a view to earn an income. I.T.A. No.: 616/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Metso OYJ. 24. Thus, the essential characteristics which are requir…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 242/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

…ain object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. In coming to the above conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 wherein it was held one has to see whether the predominant object of the activity is to make profit or whether the predominant object of the activity is to carry out charitable purposes and not profit making. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Organisation Vs. CIT (121 ITR 1), wherei…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 241/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

…ain object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. In coming to the above conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 wherein it was held one has to see whether the predominant object of the activity is to make profit or whether the predominant object of the activity is to carry out charitable purposes and not profit making. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Organisation Vs. CIT (121 ITR 1), wherei…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions)Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

…ain object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. In coming to the above conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 wherein it was held one has to see whether the predominant object of the activity is to make profit or whether the predominant object of the activity is to carry out charitable purposes and not profit making. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Organisation Vs. CIT (121 ITR 1), wherei…

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2596/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2593 to 2596/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. Magadi Planning Authority, The Income Tax Bagegowda Layout, Officer Tirumale Main Road, (Exemption), Magadi, Ward – 3, Ramnagar – 562 120. Bangalore. Vs. Karnataka. PAN: AAALM1912D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : D.N. Joshi & Co, CAs Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 ORDER PER BENCH These are th…

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2595/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2593 to 2596/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. Magadi Planning Authority, The Income Tax Bagegowda Layout, Officer Tirumale Main Road, (Exemption), Magadi, Ward – 3, Ramnagar – 562 120. Bangalore. Vs. Karnataka. PAN: AAALM1912D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : D.N. Joshi & Co, CAs Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 ORDER PER BENCH These are th…

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2594/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2593 to 2596/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. Magadi Planning Authority, The Income Tax Bagegowda Layout, Officer Tirumale Main Road, (Exemption), Magadi, Ward – 3, Ramnagar – 562 120. Bangalore. Vs. Karnataka. PAN: AAALM1912D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : D.N. Joshi & Co, CAs Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 ORDER PER BENCH These are th…

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2593/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2593 to 2596/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2018-19 M/s. Magadi Planning Authority, The Income Tax Bagegowda Layout, Officer Tirumale Main Road, (Exemption), Magadi, Ward – 3, Ramnagar – 562 120. Bangalore. Vs. Karnataka. PAN: AAALM1912D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : D.N. Joshi & Co, CAs Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24-03-2025 ORDER PER BENCH These are th…

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1353/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ain object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. In coming to the above conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 wherein it was held one has to see whether the predominant object of the activity is to make profit or whether the predominant object of the activity is to carry out charitable purposes and not profit making. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Organisation Vs. CIT (121 ITR 1), wherei…

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1352/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ain object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. In coming to the above conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 wherein it was held one has to see whether the predominant object of the activity is to make profit or whether the predominant object of the activity is to carry out charitable purposes and not profit making. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Organisation Vs. CIT (121 ITR 1), wherei…

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

ITA 1056/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…ain object to ensure planned development of Bangalore City and not with the intention to make profits. In coming to the above conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Barendra Ray and Others Vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 wherein it was held one has to see whether the predominant object of the activity is to make profit or whether the predominant object of the activity is to carry out charitable purposes and not profit making. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Organisation Vs. CIT (121 ITR 1), wherei…

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1123/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…he same form incidental, ancillary and connected activities and whether the same were carried out predominantly with a profit motive. The AO and CIT(A) in their orders relied upon the following judicial decisions: * Barendra Prasad Ray v. Income-tax Officer (129 ITR 295) SC * Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharma Reddy (A) (73 ITR 751) SC * Sole Trustee, LokaShikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (101 ITR 234 SC) We have already discussed the case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PHD Chamber of Commerce &Industry(Supra), wherein very categorically held that activities and services performed f…

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

ITA 737/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)

…such transactions constitutes `business'. Thus the word `business' means an activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Barendra Prosad Ray Vs. ITO [(1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC)] in which it was held that the word `business' is of a wider import to mean an activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person by applying labour or skill with a view to earning income. It, therefore, follows that in order to categorize an income under this provision , it is of paramount importance that the assessee should be…

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 499/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…he same form incidental, ancillary and connected activities and whether the same were carried out predominantly with a profit motive. The AO and CIT(A) in their orders relied upon the following judicial decisions: * Barendra Prasad Ray v. Income-tax Officer (129 ITR 295) SC * Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharma Reddy (A) (73 ITR 751) SC * Sole Trustee, LokaShikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (101 ITR 234 SC) We have already discussed the case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PHD Chamber of Commerce &Industry(Supra), wherein very categorically held that activities and services performed f…

Mr.P.C.Jose, Cochin vs. DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…indicia of trade, is capable of being regarded as business. Case law in the matter is legion, and we may cite some: Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 368 (SC); State of AP v. H. Abdul Bakshi & Bros. [1964] 15 STC 644 (SC); CIT v. A. Dharma Reddy [1969] 73 ITR 751 (SC); Vishwanath Jhunjhunwala v. State of UP [2004] 4 SCC 437 (SC), et. al. On facts, Sh. Das, the ld. CIT-DR, has culled out the relevant details from the assessee’s paper- book (APB-1) as Statements A & B, at pages 21-23 of DPB-2. The same are appended as AnnexuresA1 & A2 to his Order, exhibit as they do the assessee’s activity insofar as the im…

The Institute of India Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1230/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…he same form incidental, ancillary and connected activities and whether the same were carried out predominantly with a profit motive. The AO and CIT(A) in their orders relied upon the following judicial decisions: * Barendra Prasad Ray v. Income-tax Officer (129 ITR 295) SC * Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharma Reddy (A) (73 ITR 751) SC * Sole Trustee, LokaShikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (101 ITR 234 SC) We have already discussed the case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PHD Chamber of Commerce &Industry(Supra), wherein very categorically held that activities and services performed f…

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1229/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…he same form incidental, ancillary and connected activities and whether the same were carried out predominantly with a profit motive. The AO and CIT(A) in their orders relied upon the following judicial decisions: * Barendra Prasad Ray v. Income-tax Officer (129 ITR 295) SC * Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharma Reddy (A) (73 ITR 751) SC * Sole Trustee, LokaShikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (101 ITR 234 SC) We have already discussed the case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PHD Chamber of Commerce &Industry(Supra), wherein very categorically held that activities and services performed f…