CIT (E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority

395 ITR 18High Court2017#5135 most cited

What is CIT (E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority authority for?

Government bodies are not entitled to exemption if their activities are motivated by profit. The decisive test for 'commercial activity' under section 10(46) is whether the activities for which consideration is collected are intrinsically associated with the object for which the body was set up.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority · section 10(46) · commercial activity · government bodies · exemption · profit motive · purposive interpretation

Issues it is cited on

section 10(46)purposive interpretationsection 11(3)section 11(5)corpus fundsection 288accumulation of incomesection 3(1)section 115jb(2)assessment order erroneousrevision under section 263section 18

Judgments citing CIT (E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ext, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298 CTR 127 (All.).In GNIDA\n(supra), the High Court drew a distinction between bodies set up by\nthe government with commercial purpose and objects - which are\nmotivated by profit, and other government bodies. The court held,\ncorrectly so that other government bodies are not entitled to\nexemption as they are motivated by profit. Then, dealing…

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ext, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298 CTR_127 (All.).In GNIDA\n(supra), the High Court drew a distinction between bodies set up by\nthe government with commercial purpose and objects - which are\nmotivated by profit, and other government bodies. The court held,\ncorrectly so that other government bodies are not entitled to\nexemption as they are motivated by profit. Then, dealing…

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ext, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298 CTR_127 (All.).In GNIDA\n(supra), the High Court drew a distinction between bodies set up by\nthe government with commercial purpose and objects - which are\nmotivated by profit, and other government bodies. The court held,\ncorrectly so that other government bodies are not entitled to\nexemption as they are motivated by profit. Then, dealing…

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ext, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298 CTR_127 (All.).In GNIDA\n(supra), the High Court drew a distinction between bodies set up by\nthe government with commercial purpose and objects - which are\nmotivated by profit, and other government bodies. The court held,\ncorrectly so that other government bodies are not entitled to\nexemption as they are motivated by profit. Then, dealing…

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

…and corporations which are tasked with development of industrial areas, by statute, the judgments of this court, in Shri Ramtanu Cooperative Housing Society (supra) and Gujarat Industrial Development 147 (2018) 406 ITR 418 (hereafter “GNIDA”) 148 (2017) 395 ITR 18 103 Corporation (supra) have declared that these bodies are involved in ‘development’ and are not essentially engaged in trading. In Shri Ramtanu Cooperative Housing Society (supra) this court, by a five judge bench, held that the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation is not a trading concern, and observed as follows: “These fea…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ked out. The revenue did not deny the same but alleged that the profit motive is embedded in this formula as shown by the adjustments for various charges. The Appellant further relies on para 48 of CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg.190 of LPB) wherein the court has held as under - Para 48. In the context of Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LDA") a statutory body constituted under UP. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "UPUPD Act, 1973") in CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, 2014 (2) AU I 578, a ques…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ked out. The revenue did not deny the same but alleged that the profit motive is embedded in this formula as shown by the adjustments for various charges. The Appellant further relies on para 48 of CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg.190 of LPB) wherein the court has held as under - Para 48. In the context of Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LDA") a statutory body constituted under UP. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "UPUPD Act, 1973") in CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, 2014 (2) AU I 578, a ques…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ked out. The revenue did not deny the same but alleged that the profit motive is embedded in this formula as shown by the adjustments for various charges. The Appellant further relies on para 48 of CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg.190 of LPB) wherein the court has held as under - Para 48. In the context of Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LDA") a statutory body constituted under UP. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "UPUPD Act, 1973") in CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, 2014 (2) AU I 578, a ques…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ked out. The revenue did not deny the same but alleged that the profit motive is embedded in this formula as shown by the adjustments for various charges. The Appellant further relies on para 48 of CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg.190 of LPB) wherein the court has held as under - Para 48. In the context of Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LDA") a statutory body constituted under UP. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "UPUPD Act, 1973") in CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, 2014 (2) AU I 578, a ques…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ked out. The revenue did not deny the same but alleged that the profit motive is embedded in this formula as shown by the adjustments for various charges. The Appellant further relies on para 48 of CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg.190 of LPB) wherein the court has held as under - Para 48. In the context of Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LDA") a statutory body constituted under UP. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "UPUPD Act, 1973") in CIT v. Lucknow Development Authority, 2014 (2) AU I 578, a ques…

ARTEMIS EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,GURGAON vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

ITA 8/DEL/2021[--]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…f assessment in the light of the provisions contained u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. 10. While examining the scope of sections 11 & 12 of the Act Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case cited as CIT (E) vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority – (2017) 395 ITR 18 (All.) has held that, “it is not within the purview of Commissioner to examine whether the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 11 or 12 since that was within the jurisdiction of AO and not the Commissioner (E).” Hon’ble High Court further held that, “A body or institution which is functioning for advancement of objects of general public utili…

ARTEMIS EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,GURGAON vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

ITA 7475/DEL/2017[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…f assessment in the light of the provisions contained u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. 10. While examining the scope of sections 11 & 12 of the Act Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case cited as CIT (E) vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority – (2017) 395 ITR 18 (All.) has held that, “it is not within the purview of Commissioner to examine whether the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 11 or 12 since that was within the jurisdiction of AO and not the Commissioner (E).” Hon’ble High Court further held that, “A body or institution which is functioning for advancement of objects of general public utili…

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 3, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHENNAI AUTO ANCILLIARY INDUSTRTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADATION COMPANY, CHENNAI

ITA 448/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…ities of the appellant cannot be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce and business conducted with a profit motive. As observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All) charitable purpose primarily envisages that pre-dominant object must be to promote welfare of general public. Ancillary activity, if any, other than that of the general one performed by the said institution would not render such institution 'non-charitable'. An organization or institution which is functioning for development and maintenance…

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 3, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHENNAI AUTO ANCILLIARY INDUSTRTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADATION COMPANY, CHENNAI

ITA 447/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…ities of the appellant cannot be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce and business conducted with a profit motive. As observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All) charitable purpose primarily envisages that pre-dominant object must be to promote welfare of general public. Ancillary activity, if any, other than that of the general one performed by the said institution would not render such institution 'non-charitable'. An organization or institution which is functioning for development and maintenance…

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 3, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHENNAI AUTO ANCILLIARY INDUSTRTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADATION COMPANY, CHENNAI

ITA 446/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…ities of the appellant cannot be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce and business conducted with a profit motive. As observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All) charitable purpose primarily envisages that pre-dominant object must be to promote welfare of general public. Ancillary activity, if any, other than that of the general one performed by the said institution would not render such institution 'non-charitable'. An organization or institution which is functioning for development and maintenance…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - EXEMPTION vs. ASSOCIATION OF THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS

The appeal is dismissed with no orders

ITA/1071/2018HC Delhi20 Jan 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 12ASection 260A

…ciently compliant in order to secure registration under Section 12A of the Act. The ITAT has examined several decisions on this aspect, including CIT v. Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd. 2015 3 77 ITR 469, CIT (E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Authority (2017) 395 ITR 18 and the decision of this Court in PHD Chambers of Commerce and Industry v. DIT (E) (2014) 265 CTR (Del.) 318 and also CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) and has came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to the registration. The relevant portion of the order of the ITAT has been extracted hereinunder: “12. I…

K.P. SINGH CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

ITA 3224/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…es and his apprehension qua carrying out the charitable activities can be taken care of by the AO at the time of framing the assessment. 9. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case cited as CIT (E) vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority – (2017) 395 ITR 18 (All.) while discussing the scope of sections 11 & 12 of the Act has held that it is not within the purview of Commissioner to examine whether the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 11 or 12 since that was within the jurisdiction of AO and not the Commissioner (E). Hon’ble High Court further held that, “A body or institution which is functi…

K.P. SINGH CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

ITA 3223/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…es and his apprehension qua carrying out the charitable activities can be taken care of by the AO at the time of framing the assessment. 9. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case cited as CIT (E) vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority – (2017) 395 ITR 18 (All.) while discussing the scope of sections 11 & 12 of the Act has held that it is not within the purview of Commissioner to examine whether the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 11 or 12 since that was within the jurisdiction of AO and not the Commissioner (E). Hon’ble High Court further held that, “A body or institution which is functi…

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 342/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 115JSection 195(2)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. No.342/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 DCIT, Circle-4, iGate Global Solutions Ltd., Pune Vs. 158-162(P), EPIP Phase-II, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560066 PAN : AABCM4573E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / IT(TP) A. No.10/BANG/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Capgemini Technology ACIT, Range-11, Services India Limited Vs. Bangalore (earlier known as iGATE Global Solutions Ltd.), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech…

SAKHI-SAHELI MICORFINANCE FORUM,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

ITA 883/JPR/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 8

…he has relied upon the following decisions:- 4 Sakhi-Saheli Micro Finance Forum vs. CIT(E) • CIT vs IILM Foundation Academy (2016) 290CTR 583. • CIT vs. Gopi Ram Goyal Charitable Trust (2017) 392 ITR 285. • CIT vs. Yamuna Express Ind. Dev. Authority (2017) 395 ITR 18. • CIT Vs Ameliorating India (2017) 399 ITR 196. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(E) has carried out necessary enquiry to satisfy itself about the activities of the assessee. On examination of the record and particularly profit and loss of the assessee the ld. CIT(E) found the activities of the assessee cannot be t…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2