Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT

358 ITR 78High Court2013#1984 most cited
58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,444 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

The Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6706/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 2(75)

…interviews with respect to campus placement. The Court held that such activities cannot be stated to be rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business at all. This was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT 358 ITR 78 and in PHD Chamber of Commerce 357 ITR 296. The Gujarat High Court in DGIT Vs. Sabarmathi Ashram Gaushala Trust 44 Taxman 141 took the view that a Trust registered with the objects of breeding cattle and cows and oxen cannot be said to be carrying on activities of trade, commerce or business merely because considerable income was generated on acco…

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)

…erms exist in agreement, it does not make the existence of the assessee for the profit. He further relied on several decisions as under:- I. ICAI Accounting Research Foundation and Ors. Vs. DGIT 321 ITR 73 II. Bureau of Indian Standards Vs. DGIT (Exemptions) 358 ITR 78 III. GS1 India Vs. DGIT (Exemptions) 262 CTR 285 IV. India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. DIT(E) 371 ITR 333 V. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. DIT (E) 357 ITR 296 VI. National Interest Exchange of India Vs. DIT (Exemption) ITA No. 3033/Del/2005 VII. Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures 159 ITD 659 VIII. National Accreditation Boar…

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)

…erms exist in agreement, it does not make the existence of the assessee for the profit. He further relied on several decisions as under:- I. ICAI Accounting Research Foundation and Ors. Vs. DGIT 321 ITR 73 II. Bureau of Indian Standards Vs. DGIT (Exemptions) 358 ITR 78 III. GS1 India Vs. DGIT (Exemptions) 262 CTR 285 IV. India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. DIT(E) 371 ITR 333 V. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. DIT (E) 357 ITR 296 VI. National Interest Exchange of India Vs. DIT (Exemption) ITA No. 3033/Del/2005 VII. Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures 159 ITD 659 VIII. National Accreditation Boar…

Dahisar Sports Foudation, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) (I), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7046/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7046/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dahisar Sports Foundation Ito (Exemptions)-(1), Dahisar Sports Foundation Ground, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, बनाम/ Opp. Viday Mandir School, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. C. S. Road, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatd 3769 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 31.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.09.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1.1 The Learned Commissioner Of Income - Tax (Appeals) - 1, Mumbai, ["Ld. C1T (A)"] Erred In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. In Denying The 2 Dahisar Sports Foundation Vs. Ito (E) Benefit Of Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Income - Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act"] To The Appellant. 1.2 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. In Holding That The Case Of The Appellant Was Covered By The Proviso To Section 2 (15) Of The Act. 1.3 It Is Submitted That In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, No Denial Of Exemption Was Called For. 2 Without Prejudice To The Above, In The Alternative, Assuming - But Not Admitting - That Some Addition Was Called For, The Computation Of The Same Is Not In Accordance With The Law, Is Arbitrary & Excessive.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 271

…iso is not applicable if the alleged commercial activity is the very activity with respect of which registration u/s. 12 is granted and is in force, the learned counsel referred to following case laws: 1. PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry vs. DIT(E) [2012] 357 ITR 296 (Del). 2. CIT vs. Lucknow Development Authority [2014] 98 DTR (All) 183 3. Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers vs. ITO(E) [2016] 159 ITD 659 (Del-Trib). 4. Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust vs. ITO [2016] 45 ITR 682 (Amritsar- Trib) 5 Dahisar Sports Foundation vs. ITO (E) 7. For the applicability of proviso to section 2(15) vis-a-vis a Sports…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Consultancy Development Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 92/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 92/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer (E), Vs Consultancy Development Centre, Ward-1(3), Iind Floor, Zone-Iv B, India New Delhi-110002 Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatc4020A Assessee By : Sh. R. R. Maurya, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sampoornanand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 06.10.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. R. Maurya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sampoornanand, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ave carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the order of lower authorities. The Id DR could not controvert the fact that the issue is not covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Bureau of Indian Standards reported at 358 ITR 78 as well as the circular of the CBDT No. 11/2008. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in GS1 India Vs. DGIT 360 ITR 138 has also explained the fact of amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2009 wherein it has been held that the amended provisions applies only in the case where the activities of the assessee falls in the category of "objects of general public utility". I…

DDIT (E), Delhi vs. Petrotech, New Delhi

ITA 6259/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiddit(E), Vs. Petrotech, Inv. Cir-Ii, Room No. 306, Aayakar 601/603, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaaap0965E (Appellant) (Respondent )

For Appellant: Sh Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11hSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…n on commercial lines for profit motive. DDIT ( Exemption) VPetrotech ITA No 6259/ Del/2012 A Y 2009-10 Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following decisions:  ICAI v. DGIT( E): 358 ITR 91(Del. HC)  PHD Chambers of Commerce & Industry v. DIT(E): 357 ITR 296 (Del. HC)  Hamdard Laboratories India vs. DGIT: 216 Taxman 201 (Del. HC)  India trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E): 371 ITR 333 (Del. HC)  GS1 India vs. DGIT(Exemptions): 262 CTR 585 (Del. HC))  Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT(Exemptions): 27 taxmann.com 127 (Del. HC)  DIT v. Ahmedabad Management Association: 366 ITR 85 (Guj. HC) …

ITO, New Delhi vs. Consultancy Development Centre, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2173/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiito(E) Consultancy Development Centre, Trust Ward-Iii, Room No.2419, 24Th Iind Floor, Zone Ivb, Lodhi Road, Vs. Floor, E-2, Block, Pratyaksh Kar India Habitat Centre, New Delhi Bhawan, Civi Centre, Jawahar Lal Pan:Aaatc4020A Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. SD Kapila, Adv
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

…relied upon the order of the ld Assessing Officer whereas the ld AR 4. relied upon the order of the ld CIT(A) and further submitted that the issue is further covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 360 ITR 138 and 358 ITR 78. He further submitted a chart of comparable of those decisions with the facts involved in the present case. 5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the order of lower authorities. The ld DR could not controvert the fact that the issue is not covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Bureau of Ind…

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)

…s, trade or commerce, unless there is some intention to carry on business, trade or commerce on a permanent basis or with a reasonable continuity. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry vs. DIT(E): 357 ITR 296 (Del HC) - Bureau of Indian Standard vs. DGIT(E) : 27 taxmann.com 127 (Del HC) (Refer page 1126 to 1132 of caselaw paperbook) - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DIT (Exemptions): 245 CTR 541 (Del HC) - DIT (Exemptions) v. Commerce Teachers Association: 203 Taxman 171 (Del HC) - Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. vs DIT: ITA No. 319/Mu…

Credit Gurantee Fund Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6282/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklacredit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro & Small Enterprises, 7Th Floor, Sme Development Centre, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan:Aaatc 2613D ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Pirmal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Prawin Kumar
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s submitted that the same have been rendered in the context of the legal position prevailing after the insertion of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act by Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 01/04/2009:- (i) PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry vs. DIT(E), 357 ITR 296. (ii)Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Another v. DGI(E) And Other, 358 ITR 91(Del) 15 (iii) GSI India v. DGIT(E), 360 ITR 138(Del) (iv) India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E) & Others, 371 ITR 333 (Del) 5.6 We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Before we proceed to address the controversy relating to invo…

M/S. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun vs. CIT, Dehradun

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

ITA 180/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2017

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh B. Chhibber, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 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…

DDIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4768/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

…interviews with respect to campus placement. The Court held that such activities cannot be stated to be rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business at all. This was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT 358 ITR 78 and in PHD Chamber of Commerce 357 ITR 296. The Gujarat High Court in DGIT Vs. Sabarmathi Ashram Gaushala Trust 44 Taxman 141 took the view that a Trust registered with the objects of breeding cattle and cows and oxen cannot be said to be carrying on activities of trade, commerce or business merely because considerable income was generated on acco…

Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), Mumbai

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4468/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

…interviews with respect to campus placement. The Court held that such activities cannot be stated to be rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business at all. This was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT 358 ITR 78 and in PHD Chamber of Commerce 357 ITR 296. The Gujarat High Court in DGIT Vs. Sabarmathi Ashram Gaushala Trust 44 Taxman 141 took the view that a Trust registered with the objects of breeding cattle and cows and oxen cannot be said to be carrying on activities of trade, commerce or business merely because considerable income was generated on acco…

DDIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 1809/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

…interviews with respect to campus placement. The Court held that such activities cannot be stated to be rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business at all. This was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT 358 ITR 78 and in PHD Chamber of Commerce 357 ITR 296. The Gujarat High Court in DGIT Vs. Sabarmathi Ashram Gaushala Trust 44 Taxman 141 took the view that a Trust registered with the objects of breeding cattle and cows and oxen cannot be said to be carrying on activities of trade, commerce or business merely because considerable income was generated on acco…

Daya Nand Pushpa Devi Charitable Trust, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4238/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH : SMC-II, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2010-11 Daya Nand Pushpa Devi Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Charitable Trust, Income Tax, NH-24, Delhi Hapur Bye Pass, Range 1, Qazipura More, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. PAN: AAATD 2572Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 15.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016 O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.03.2015 of the CIT(Appeals), Muzaffarnaga…

M/S Society for Participatory Research in Asia, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), New Delhi

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

ITA 2657/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Society For Participatory Research In Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Trust Ward-Iii, Asia, 42,Tughlakabad Instutional Area, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaats1994H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

…assessee to carry out the educational activities and therefore, the appellant cannot be held to be engaged in surplus activities. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry v. DIT(E) 357 ITR 296. It was submitted that contributions on account of short term project is only of Rs. 92.12 lacs as against grants in aid of Rs. 15.91 crores and therefore, is not relevant in any manner. The appellant also submitted that merely because a fee or some other consideration is collected or received by an institution, it would not lose its character of…

M/S. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh vs. CIT (E), Lucknow

The appeal is allowed

ITA 113/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2016

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: -- Greater Noida Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, H-169, Chitvan Estate, Lucknow. Sector-Gamma, Gr. Noida City, District – Gautam Budh Nagar. Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalg0129L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: - - Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, First Floor, Commercial Complex, Lucknow. P-2, Sector-Omega 1, Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalt0341D) Assessee By: S/Shri Balbir Singh & Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv., Sk Gupta & Ms. Raj Rani, Cas. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

For Appellant: S/Shri Balbir Singh & AbhinavFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar, CIT( DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 6

…All.); e) Haridwar Dev. Authority vs. CIT – ITA Nos. 3056/Del/2012 & Ors. – order dated 25.7.2014; f) Jammu Dev. Authority vs. Union of India – ITA No. 164 of 2012 – judgment dated 7.11.2013 (J&K); g) Bureau of Indian Standard vs. DG of Income-tax (E)(2013) – 358 ITR 78 (Del.); h) Indian Trade Promotion Organization vs. DG of Income-tax (E) & Ors. (2015)-371 ITR 333 (Del.); 11 j) Managing Director, Haryana State Ind. Dev. Corporation & Ors. Vs. Hari Om Enterprises (2009) – 16 SCC 208; k) Jodhpur Development Authority vs. CIT – ITA No. 508/Jodhpur/2010 – order dated 9.1.2012; L) Jaipur Development Authority vs. C…

The Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4843/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 11(5)(iii)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…interviews with respect to campus placement. The Court held that such activities cannot be stated to be rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business at all. This was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT 358 ITR 78 and in PHD Chamber of Commerce 357 ITR 296. The Gujarat High Court in DGIT Vs. Sabarmathi Ashram Gaushala Trust 44 Taxman 141 took the view that a Trust registered with the objects of breeding cattle and cows and oxen cannot be said to be carrying on activities of trade, commerce or business merely because considerable income was generated on acco…

DDIT (E), Delhi vs. M/S. All India Football Federation, New Delhi

ITA 6352/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 11Section 2(15)

…d accountants. A very narrow view had been taken that the Institute was holding coaching classes and that this amounted to business.´ 21. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bureau of Indian Standards vs. Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions) (2013) 358 ITR 78 held as follows vide para 16 of the judgment : “16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in re…