Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT

358 ITR 78High Court2013#1985 most cited
58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bureau of Indian Standards v DGIT · 358 ITR 78 · Section 2(15) Income Tax Act · Proviso to Section 2(15) · Section 11 Income Tax Act · Charitable activities exemption · Advancement of general public utility · Corpus donation exemption · No substantial question of law · Section 12A · Section 12AA

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12Section 12AA(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)(ii)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mlisection 2(15)put to usecorpus donationsection 10(23c)

Judgments citing Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. CIT (Exemption)-1(1), All India Gem And Jewellery 6th floor, MTNL Building Domestic Council, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Dr. GD 1501 & 1502, Panchratna CHS Deshmukh Marg (Pedder Ltd. P Marg, Opera House, Road), Charni Road (East), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AAFCA 3001 P Appellant Respondent : Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR : 01/10/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/12/20…

PETROLEUM FEDERATION OF INDIA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 645/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 263

…n DIT vs. India Habitat Centre: (2011) 203 Taxman 510. The ITAT’s decision has relied on several judgments of this Court including India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. Director General of Income Tax: 371 ITR 333; PHD Chambers of Commerce & Industry vs. DIT: 357 ITR 296, etc. 3. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact and ruling in Indian Trade Promotion Organisation vs. Director General of Income Tax: 371 ITR 333, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity or error of law in the impugned order calling for interference. No substantial question of law arises. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dis…

PETROLEUM FEDERATION OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. CIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3967/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 263

…n DIT vs. India Habitat Centre: (2011) 203 Taxman 510. The ITAT’s decision has relied on several judgments of this Court including India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. Director General of Income Tax: 371 ITR 333; PHD Chambers of Commerce & Industry vs. DIT: 357 ITR 296, etc. 3. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact and ruling in Indian Trade Promotion Organisation vs. Director General of Income Tax: 371 ITR 333, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity or error of law in the impugned order calling for interference. No substantial question of law arises. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dis…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI vs. PHD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

ITA - 57 / 2023HC Delhi30 Jan 2023
Section 11

…he QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:48:56 and AY 2007-08. 8.1 This decision is dated 19.10.2012 and has been rendered in PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry v. Director of Income Tax-Exemptions (2013) 357 ITR 296. 8.2. We are also informed that the said decision was assailed by the revenue by way of Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed. 9. In view of the above, the appeals are closed, as, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J JANUARY 30, 2023 / tr…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. PHD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

ITA - 58 / 2023HC Delhi30 Jan 2023
Section 11

…he QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:03:27 and AY 2007-08. 8.1 This decision is dated 19.10.2012 and has been rendered in PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry v. Director of Income Tax-Exemptions (2013) 357 ITR 296. 8.2. We are also informed that the said decision was assailed by the revenue by way of Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed. 9. In view of the above, the appeals are closed, as, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J JANUARY 30, 2023 / tr…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…ices, which have general public utility. These activities are by way of booking large spaces in fairs, and such like events, especially in overseas locales, so that Indian manufacturers can interact with other overseas buyers, and 70 321 ITR 73 (Del) 71 358 ITR 78 (Del) 72 360 ITR 138 (Del) 42 are enabled to promote trade. It was submitted that there is ex-officio involvement on behalf of the Central Government, in the AEPC’s activities, including in its policy formulation levels. 67. Mr. Vohra relied upon the Memo Explaining Provisions in the Finance Bill, 200873, the speech of Finance Minister…

THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 36

…not be invoked in assessee's case" The following are a few further judgements of Hon'ble High Courts also support and upheld the same view: (1) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. DGIT (Exemption) 347 ITR 99. (2) Bureau of Indian Standards Vs DGIT 358 ITR 78 (3) DIT Vs. Womans India Trust 379 ITR 506 (4) CIT (Ex) Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association (2017) 164 ITD 212 (JP. Trib) (5)Indian Trade Promotion Organization Vs DGIT (Exemp) (2015) 371 ITR 333 (V) (Delhi) (6) Praxis Institute of Participatory Practices Vs. DIT 2015) 154 ITD 10 (Delhi) (7) Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. ITO (2015) 155 ITD 570 (A…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI vs. PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTION, NEW DELHI

ITA 3313/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ed in any trade, commerce or business to attract the mischief of the proviso to section 2(15) and the assessee also relied on the various case laws being- GS1 India vs. DGIT (Exemption), 360 ITR 138 (Delhi) (2014). i) Bureau of India Standards vs. DGIT (E), 358 ITR 78 (Delhi) (2013). ii) iii) Director of Income Tax (E) vs. ICAI, 347 ITR 86 (Delhi)(2012). iv) ICAI vs. DGIT(E) 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) (2012). 4.1.3 As per the contention of the appellant its activities fall under the category of relief of poor and, in support, the appellant has relied on the objects of the society as per the Memorandum of Association, d…

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 124Section 142Section 153

…2 (ALL) (3) Most of the functions carried out by the appellant authority are functions of state and the income accruing in performance of such functions is inherently charitable- Union of India vs. R.C.Jain (1981 AIR 951) Bureau of Indian Standards vs. D.G. (358 ITR 78) (4) Predominant view of the Apex Court as well as various High courts is that for determining whether activities of an institution are charitable or commercial in nature the intention to earn profit is a basic criteria. In case of appellant there is no intention at all to earn profit. UPUPD Act as well as various G.O. of UP Govt . does not presc…

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 149/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…contemplated a trade or a business or a commercial activity other than for profit. The Hon'ble High Court in this respect referred to the several judgments of the Delhi High Court including in the case of Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(Exemptions) [2013] 358 ITR 78/212 Taxman 210/[2012] 27 taxmann.com 127, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions), [2013] 358 ITR 91/217 Taxman 152/35 taxmann.com 140 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that while construing the term business for the purpose of Section 2(15) of the Act the object and purpose of the Section must be kept in mind and a bro…

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 355/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…contemplated a trade or a business or a commercial activity other than for profit. The Hon'ble High Court in this respect referred to the several judgments of the Delhi High Court including in the case of Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(Exemptions) [2013] 358 ITR 78/212 Taxman 210/[2012] 27 taxmann.com 127, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions), [2013] 358 ITR 91/217 Taxman 152/35 taxmann.com 140 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that while construing the term business for the purpose of Section 2(15) of the Act the object and purpose of the Section must be kept in mind and a bro…

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 256/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…contemplated a trade or a business or a commercial activity other than for profit. The Hon'ble High Court in this respect referred to the several judgments of the Delhi High Court including in the case of Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT(Exemptions) [2013] 358 ITR 78/212 Taxman 210/[2012] 27 taxmann.com 127, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions), [2013] 358 ITR 91/217 Taxman 152/35 taxmann.com 140 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that while construing the term business for the purpose of Section 2(15) of the Act the object and purpose of the Section must be kept in mind and a bro…

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)

…stipulated in Lord Fisher (supra) are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts." 20. Recently in another decision in WP(C) No. 1755 of 2012 titled Bureau of Indian Standards v. Director-General of Income-tax (Exemptions) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi) dated September 27, 2012, it was held that Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) was carrying on charitable activities as described within the ambit of section 2(15) and was entitled to registration/notification under section 10(23C)(iv). We, however, note that there is one distinction between the present petitioner and BIS. BIS is a statutory…

Showing 1–20 of 58 · Page 1 of 3

Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT (358 ITR 78) — Cited in 58 Judgments | BharatTax