CIT (Exemptions) v. National Internet Exchange of India

417 ITR 436High Court2019#14185 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Read the full judgment

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)mliput to usesection 10(23c)section 2(15)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing CIT (Exemptions) v. National Internet Exchange of India

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)

…ic that the Provisos to section 2(15) should not simply apply. Ld. A.R. relied on the following cases: ∞ State of Tamil Nadu vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC); ∞ CIT (Exemptions) vs. National Internet Exchange of India (2019) 417 ITR 436 (Delhi); ∞ Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT (E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4.…

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)

…ic that the Provisos to section 2(15) should not simply apply. Ld. A.R. relied on the following cases: ∞ State of Tamil Nadu vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC); ∞ CIT (Exemptions) vs. National Internet Exchange of India (2019) 417 ITR 436 (Delhi); ∞ Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT (E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4.…

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)

…ic that the Provisos to section 2(15) should not simply apply. Ld. A.R. relied on the following cases: ∞ State of Tamil Nadu vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC); ∞ CIT (Exemptions) vs. National Internet Exchange of India (2019) 417 ITR 436 (Delhi); ∞ Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT (E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4.…

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)

…ic that the Provisos to section 2(15) should not simply apply. Ld. A.R. relied on the following cases: ∞ State of Tamil Nadu vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC); ∞ CIT (Exemptions) vs. National Internet Exchange of India (2019) 417 ITR 436 (Delhi); ∞ Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT (E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4.…

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)

…ic that the Provisos to section 2(15) should not simply apply. Ld. A.R. relied on the following cases: ∞ State of Tamil Nadu vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC); ∞ CIT (Exemptions) vs. National Internet Exchange of India (2019) 417 ITR 436 (Delhi); ∞ Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT (E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4.…

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)

…ic that the Provisos to section 2(15) should not simply apply. Ld. A.R. relied on the following cases: ∞ State of Tamil Nadu vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC); ∞ CIT (Exemptions) vs. National Internet Exchange of India (2019) 417 ITR 436 (Delhi); ∞ Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT (E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4.…

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)

…ic that the Provisos to section 2(15) should not simply apply. Ld. A.R. relied on the following cases: ∞ State of Tamil Nadu vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras [1999] 114 STC 520 (SC); ∞ CIT (Exemptions) vs. National Internet Exchange of India (2019) 417 ITR 436 (Delhi); ∞ Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT (E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4.…

CIT (Exemptions) v. National Internet Exchange of India (417 ITR 436) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax