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 366,418 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

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. DCIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 666/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)Section 40

…requirements for any activity to be considered asbusiness are (i) it must be a continuous course of activity; and (ii) it must be carried on with a profit motive." Similar findings have been made in the following case laws: Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC) (1) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (2) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) (3) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. DCIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 665/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)Section 40

…requirements for any activity to be considered asbusiness are (i) it must be a continuous course of activity; and (ii) it must be carried on with a profit motive." Similar findings have been made in the following case laws: Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC) (1) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (2) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) (3) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. DCIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 656/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)Section 40

…requirements for any activity to be considered asbusiness are (i) it must be a continuous course of activity; and (ii) it must be carried on with a profit motive." Similar findings have been made in the following case laws: Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC) (1) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (2) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) (3) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. DCIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 439/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…irements for any activity to be considered asbusiness are (i) it must be a continuous course of activity; and (ii) it must be carried on with a profit motive." Similar findings have been made in the following case laws: (1) Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (2) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) (3) I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 38 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any serv…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. ACIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 186/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…irements for any activity to be considered asbusiness are (i) it must be a continuous course of activity; and (ii) it must be carried on with a profit motive." Similar findings have been made in the following case laws: (1) Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (2) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) (3) I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 38 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any serv…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. ACIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 185/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…irements for any activity to be considered asbusiness are (i) it must be a continuous course of activity; and (ii) it must be carried on with a profit motive." Similar findings have been made in the following case laws: (1) Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (2) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) (3) I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 38 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any serv…

Lucknow Evelopment Authority, Lucknow vs. I.T.O., Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 164/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…irements for any activity to be considered asbusiness are (i) it must be a continuous course of activity; and (ii) it must be carried on with a profit motive." Similar findings have been made in the following case laws: (1) Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (2) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) (3) I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 38 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any serv…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 163/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…irements for any activity to be considered asbusiness are (i) it must be a continuous course of activity; and (ii) it must be carried on with a profit motive." Similar findings have been made in the following case laws: (1) Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (2) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) (3) I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 38 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any serv…

Ajay Arora, Kanpur vs. Addl. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 90/LKW/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…I.T.A No.90/LKW/2017 1 Ajay Aroravs. Addl. CIT (AY 2011-12) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW “SMC” BENCH, LUCKNOW (Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 90/LKW/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 AjayArora vs. Additional Commissioner of 112/364-A, Income Tax, Swaroop Nagar, Range -2, Kanpur Kanpur [PAN:ABJPA 3585C] (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by ShriPradeepMehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Ajay Kumar,Sr. DR Date of hearing 18/11/2021 Date of pronouncement 25/11/2021 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commis…

DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Internatioanl Taxation, New Delhi vs. Western Union Financial Services, Gurgaon

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 7211/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14
Section 9(1)

…activity or conduct with a set purpose. In Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 265 the Supreme Court held that underlying the expression "business" is the fundamental idea of continuous exercise of an activity. In Barendra Prasad Ray v. YTO [1981] 129 ITR 295 the Supreme Court again held that the word is of wide import and means an activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person by the application of his labour and skill with a view to earning income. Therefore any activity which is being systematically and continuously carried on with the object of earning profits is a business activi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/S. Puma Sports India P., Ltd

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/223/2018HC Karnataka12 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260Section 40Section 5(2)(b)Section 9(1)(i)Section 92C

…iness connection. The conclusion of the High Court in this regard is absolutely defensible in view of the principles stated in C.I.T. V. Aggarwal and Company (1965) 56 ITR 20, C.I.T. V. TRC (1987) 166 ITR 1993 and Birendra Prasad Rai V. ITC (1981) 129 ITR 295. That being the position, the singular question that remains to be answered is whether the payment or receipt paid by the appellant to NRC as success fee would be deemed to be taxable in India under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. As the factual matrix would show, the appellant has not invoked Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement betwe…

ACIT, Circle- 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kapoor Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4215/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 195Section 40Section 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.4215/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) ACIT, Circle 14 (1), vs. M/s. Kapoor Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 29A-2/1, DESU Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi – 110 030. (PAN : AAECK6613N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.K. Mehra, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Shailesh Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 19.01.2021 Date of Order : 29.01.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, ACIT, Circle 14 (1), New Delh…

Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1119/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 43(6)Section 50C

…support of his contentions that unabsorbed depreciation can be set off from the assessee’s individual income. (i) Hon’ble Madras High Court N.Krishnammal vs. CIT reported in 147 ITR 431. (ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. A.Dharma Reddy reported in (1969) 73 ITR 751 (iii) Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad CIT vs. Globe Engineers 90 ITR 188 5.4. The Ld.DR, on the other hand supported the order of Pr.CIT and submitted that under Sec.78(1), only the firm is entitled to the set off of business loss and if there is a change in the constitution of the firm, the set off is not to be allowed. 5.5. Having considered t…

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)

…v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [1968] 70 ITR 730 (SC) ; [1968] 2 SCR 536, Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat 29 I.T.A. No.2235/DEL/2019 Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the c…

Giesecke & Devrient India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3865/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…tion and that there must be something more than a mere transaction of purchase and sale between principal and principal in order to bring the transaction within the purview of the expression. 18. In Barendra Prasad Ray vs. ITO (1981) 22 CTR (SC) 157 : (1981) 129 ITR 295 (SC), a firm of solicitors at Calcutta was instructed by certain solicitors in London who were acting for a German corporation. On their instructions the solicitors in India retained a barrister of London in the suit pending before the Calcutta High Court. The barrister argued the case for 15 days and went back to London without making any arrang…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sachdeva Hospitality, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4083/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4083/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sachdeva Hospitality, Ward 41(1), 12/57, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjfs1413K Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2020

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 2(13)Section 80I

…ort and it must be construed in a broad rather than in a restrictive sense. Such a view is clearly fortified by the provisions contained in s. 2(13) as well as the judgments reported in Mazagaon Dock Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), CIT vs. A. Dharma Reddy (Decd) (1969) 73 ITR 751 (SC), CIT vs. Calcutta National Bank Ltd. (supra) and CEPT vs. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mill Ltd. (supra). 7 Sachdeva Hospitality (b) The distinct heads of income specified in s. 14 of the Act are mutually exclusive. The income derived from different sources falling under specific heads has to be computed for the purpose of taxation in the manner provi…

P Pramod Jain, Chennai vs. JCIT Range VI (Now DCIT Non Corporate Circle 9 ), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1480/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Helen Ruby Jesindha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35ASection 56(2)Section 80G

…st be activity carried on continuously and systematically by a person by application of labour and skill with a view to earn income. Reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Barendra Prasad Ray and Others vs. ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295. In the present case, it is evident that there is no continuous activity of lending and in fact the money were advanced to related parties probably not with motive of earning interest income. Nothing was brought on record showing that assessee is granted license of money lending business. There is no organized activity carried on by the assessee.…

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

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1971/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
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…

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

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1970/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
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…

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

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1969/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
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…