CIT(A) v. Gujarat Maritime Board (14 SCC 704)

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

ITA 936/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…the period 1-4-2003 to 1-4-2011, a statutory corporation could claim the benefit of section 2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2008] 166 Taxman 58/[2007] 295 ITR 561/214 CTR 81 (SC)/[2007] 12 SCR 962/[2007] 14 SCC 704. Likewise, the denial of benefit under section 10(46) after 1-4-2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that it is set-up for a charitable purpose and seeking exemption under section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act. H. Application of interpretation . Page 17 of 30 At the co…

FAIZAN E BURHANE MILLAT TRUST,JABALPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/IND/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanifaizan E Burhane Millat Cit(Exemption) Trust Bhopal 181/1, Baitla Colony Vfj Society, Ward Shaheed, Abdul Vs. Hameed, Raza Chowk Milk, Scheme Road, Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatf8671J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Nd Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. -Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)

…d especially t he expression "any other object of general public utility" have observed that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word "general" in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. (CIT v. Gujara t Maritime Board, (2007) 14 SCC 704). Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individuals would be a charitable purpose. (CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Assn.) The said expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the wellbeing of the general public. It cannot…

AARAMBH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/IND/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jan 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaarambh Foundation Cit-(Exemption) 220 Saket Nagar Bhopal Saket Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabaa 0609F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

Section 12A

…nal Safety Council 305 ITR 257 (Bom), ii. Saurashtra Education Foundation vs. CIT 273 ITR 139, iii. Harnam Singh Harbans Kaur vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [2012] 17 taxmann.com 103 (Delhi Tribunal), iv. CIT(A) vs. Gujarat Maritime Board: 2007 14 SCC 704, v. CIT vs. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Assn. (1982) 2 SCC 542, vi. CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC), vii. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321, viii. Gujarat State Co-operative Union 195 ITR 279 (1992) ix. Ecumenical Christian Centre 139 ITR 226 (1983). 5.1 In these matters, lower authorities held that assessee’s activities ar…

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

…AIR 2006 SC 865; Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v. Union Of India (2007) 2 SCC 640; New Delhi Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab 1996 Supp 10 SCR 472; and Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G Sharma 1997 (3) SCR 733. 55 2007 (12) SCR 962; (2007) 14 SCC 704 (hereafter “Gujarat Maritime Board case”). 56 Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT 1976 (3) SCR 947; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation 1986 (1) SCR 570; Queens’s Educational Society v. CIT 2015 (8) SCC 47. 572002 (2) SCR 743 35 10(46). He urged that in terms of Section 11(7)58 the Board has an option to clai…

CRISP SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 298/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri

Section 11Section 2(15)

…nal Safety Council 305 ITR 257 (Bom), ii. Saurashtra Education Foundation vs. CIT 273 ITR 139, iii. Harnam Singh Harbans Kaur vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [2012] 17 taxmann.com 103 (Delhi Tribunal), iv. CIT(A) vs. Gujarat Maritime Board: 2007 14 SCC 704, v. CIT vs. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Assn. (1982) 2 SCC 542, vi. CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC), vii. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321, viii. Gujarat State Co-operative Union 195 ITR 279 (1992) ix. Ecumenical Christian Centre 139 ITR 226 (1983). ITA Nos. 297-298/Ind/2020 [CRISP Society vs. DCIT(E)] AYs. 2014-15 & 2017…

CRISP SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. DCIT -EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri

Section 11Section 2(15)

…nal Safety Council 305 ITR 257 (Bom), ii. Saurashtra Education Foundation vs. CIT 273 ITR 139, iii. Harnam Singh Harbans Kaur vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [2012] 17 taxmann.com 103 (Delhi Tribunal), iv. CIT(A) vs. Gujarat Maritime Board: 2007 14 SCC 704, v. CIT vs. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Assn. (1982) 2 SCC 542, vi. CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC), vii. Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321, viii. Gujarat State Co-operative Union 195 ITR 279 (1992) ix. Ecumenical Christian Centre 139 ITR 226 (1983). ITA Nos. 297-298/Ind/2020 [CRISP Society vs. DCIT(E)] AYs. 2014-15 & 2017…

SHRI VIJAY MAKHIJA S/O SHRI GOVIND RAM MAKHIJA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF TAX-I

ITA/81/2019HC Rajasthan29 Jul 2020

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Chaudhary and Mr. Vijay ChawlaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr

Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 3Section 38Section 38(1)Section 72

…ll objects which promote the welfare of the general public. Their Lordships further held that if the primary purpose and the predominant object are to promote the welfare of the general public the purpose would be charitable purpose. It has 3 (2007) 14 SCC 704 Page 13 of 20 (Tax Case No.81/2019) been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: - “13. We have perused number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the words in Section 2(15), namely, “any other object of general public utility”. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the widest…

M/S. M P AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (BHOPAL),BHOPAL vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

ITA 217/IND/2015[-]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: M.P. Audyogik Kendra Cit(Exemption) Vikas Nigam, Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaccm6048F Appellant By Shri Praveen N. Surange, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2019

Section 12ASection 25

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: M.P. Audyogik Kendra CIT(Exemption) Vikas Nigam, Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AACCM6048F Appellant by Shri Praveen N. Surange, Adv. Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 28.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 22.01.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal,…

THE HOLINESS DR. SYEDNA TAHER,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5463/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrisaktijit Dey & Shriramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan& Shri V.Justin

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)

…and especially the expression “any other object of general public utility” have observed that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word “general” in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. (CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board, (2007) 14 SCC 704). Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individuals would be a charitable purpose. (CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Assn.) The said expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the wellbeing of the general public. It cannot…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

ITA/100027/2014HC Karnataka15 Dec 2015

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 260ASection 263

…continue to remain under the absolute control of the Government and the respondent functioned in a fiduciary capacity. 11 8. We may usefully refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 704 at page 709 wherein it is held as follows: “11. One of the objections raised on behalf of the Department was that Gujarat Maritime Board is not entitled to the benefit of Section 11 of the 1961 Act as the said Board was not a trust under the Public Trusts Act and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim registration under Section 12-A of…

M/S RABIYA BASARI BRAHAMATH-ULLAH ALLAYHA CHARITABLE TRUST vs. CIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

ITA 423/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Kum. Neera Malhotra, CIT

Section 1Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

…and especially the expression “any other object of general public utility” have observed that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word “general” in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. (CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board, (2007) 14 SCC 704). Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individuals would be a charitable purpose. (CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Assn.) The said expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the wellbeing of the general public. It cannot…

SADIYA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST vs. CIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

ITA 422/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. Nos.422 & 1632/Bang/2013 M/S. Sadiya Educational & Charitable Trust, Mattadgadde Road, Sadiya Nagar, Shiralkoppa-577 428 …. Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (D.R)

Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

…and especially the expression “any other object of general public utility” have observed that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word “general” in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. (CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board, (2007) 14 SCC 704). Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from benefit to an individual or a group of individuals would be a charitable purpose. (CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Assn.) The said expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the wellbeing of the general public. It cannot…

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

ITTA/251/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

For Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for

Section 10(20)Section 10(29)Section 12ASection 260ASection 4Section 4(1)

…unsel for Petitioner: Sri S.R.Ashok ^Counsel for Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Market Committees ? Cases referred 1. (2007) 295 ITR 561 : (2007) 14 SCC 704 2. (1939) VII ITR 415 (PC) 3. (1965) LV ITR 722 (SC) 4. (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC) : (1980) 2 SCC 31 5. (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC) 6. (2007) 291 ITR 419 (Bom) 7. (2007) 294 ITR 563 (P&H) 8. (2009) 308 ITR 380 (MP) 9. (2009) 308 ITR 401 (MP) 10. AIR 1959 SC 300 11. AIR 1962 SC 97 12. AIR 1962 SC 1517 13. AIR 1968 S…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

ITTA/318/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011