CIT v. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (143 ITR 579)

Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

…n it amounts to compulsion.’ ITA Nos. 202&203/Ahd/2025 Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association Vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2016-17 & 2017-18 - 7– 12. Again, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council [1983] 13 Taxman 13/143 ITR 579, on the nature of voluntary contributions: It was well known that the grants-in-aid were made by the Government to provide certain institutions with sufficient funds to carry on their charitable activities. On reading the conditions on which those grants-in-aid were given, it was obvious that the institutions or associations to which the grant wa…

Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Cicle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

…n it amounts to compulsion.’ ITA Nos. 202&203/Ahd/2025 Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association Vs. DCIT Asst. Years–2016-17 & 2017-18 - 7– 12. Again, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council [1983] 13 Taxman 13/143 ITR 579, on the nature of voluntary contributions: It was well known that the grants-in-aid were made by the Government to provide certain institutions with sufficient funds to carry on their charitable activities. On reading the conditions on which those grants-in-aid were given, it was obvious that the institutions or associations to which the grant wa…

Electronics & Quality Development Centre, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 857/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of Electronics & Quality Income-Tax (Exemptions), Vs Development Centre, Circle-1, Ahmedabad B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R Assessment Years : 2014-15 Electronics & Quality The Dy. Commissioner Of Development Centre, Vs Income-Tax (Exemptions), B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Circle-1, Ahmedabad Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 807/Ahd/2018 & Other Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 857/Ahd/2018, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.01.2018, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal; Ground No.1 Of Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT-DR

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

…rpus fund donations received from governments as grants-in-aid can be considered as voluntary contribution within the meaning of section 2(24)(iia). In this regard, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gem and Jwellery Export Promotion Council [143 ITR 579] has observed that grants made to institutions are at the discretion of the donors who do not expect anything in return, therefore, grants have to be considered as voluntarily contribution. It is further observed that there is no consideration which flows back to the donor in the case of grants-in-aid received from the government…..” 5. For the…

The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Electronics & Quality Development Centre, Gandhinagar

ITA 807/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of Electronics & Quality Income-Tax (Exemptions), Vs Development Centre, Circle-1, Ahmedabad B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R Assessment Years : 2014-15 Electronics & Quality The Dy. Commissioner Of Development Centre, Vs Income-Tax (Exemptions), B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Circle-1, Ahmedabad Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 807/Ahd/2018 & Other Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 857/Ahd/2018, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.01.2018, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal; Ground No.1 Of Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT-DR

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

…rpus fund donations received from governments as grants-in-aid can be considered as voluntary contribution within the meaning of section 2(24)(iia). In this regard, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gem and Jwellery Export Promotion Council [143 ITR 579] has observed that grants made to institutions are at the discretion of the donors who do not expect anything in return, therefore, grants have to be considered as voluntarily contribution. It is further observed that there is no consideration which flows back to the donor in the case of grants-in-aid received from the government…..” 5. For the…

ITO (E)- 1(1), Mumbai vs. Anusandhan Trust, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6424/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: 11.08.2021

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)

…he Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the ground relating to grants received from agencies to be considered as eligible income for section 11 of the I.T.Act, 1961 is covered by the following case laws:- i) CIT v. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (1983) (143 ITR 579) (Bom HC) ii) Little Tradition v. DDIT(E) (2009) (119 ITD 127) (Tdel) 6. It is further pleaded that other ground relating to interest income and depreciation Are consequential to the ground No.1 in assessee appeal. 7. As regards, the issue of deletion of disallowance of claim of deficit of Rs. 3,92,62,164/-( Rs.1,43,40,656/- of previous year pl…

Anusandhan Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1 (1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6221/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: 11.08.2021

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)

…he Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the ground relating to grants received from agencies to be considered as eligible income for section 11 of the I.T.Act, 1961 is covered by the following case laws:- i) CIT v. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (1983) (143 ITR 579) (Bom HC) ii) Little Tradition v. DDIT(E) (2009) (119 ITD 127) (Tdel) 6. It is further pleaded that other ground relating to interest income and depreciation Are consequential to the ground No.1 in assessee appeal. 7. As regards, the issue of deletion of disallowance of claim of deficit of Rs. 3,92,62,164/-( Rs.1,43,40,656/- of previous year pl…

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. CIT-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1177/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maharashtra Cricket Association, 5Th Floor, Amar Avinash Corporate City, 10, Bund Garden Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaatm2192D Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT and Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…ucts national level matches and the question was whether the subsidy received from BCCI was voluntary or not. In this regard, he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (1983) 143 ITR 579 (Bom) for the proposition that what was ‘voluntary contribution’ with special reference to pages 6 and 7 of the said judgment. He further pointed out that where BCCI was giving subsidy for building of stadium and there would be supervision and there is no merit in the stand of Commissioner in this regard. Further, reliance was placed on the decis…

The Indian Silk Export Promotion Concil, New Delhi vs. Asst CIT (E) II(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3328/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. H. Gajria, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad, DR

Section 11Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Indian Silk Export Promotion Vs. ACIT Council, B-1, Entension A -39 Mohan Co-op. (Exemption) II (1), Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Mumbai- 400002 New Delhi-110044. PAN No. AAATT4407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri N. H. Gajria, AR Revenue by: Shri Kailash Gaikwad, DR. Date of Hearing : 06/10/2016 Date of pronouncement: 30/11/2016 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant ass…

Society of Automobile Manufacturers, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1743/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Society Of Automobile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward-Ii, Manufacturers, Core-4B, 5Th Floor, New Delhi Indian Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaats4258A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Rupesh Jain, Gaurav Jain & Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Advocates. Respondent By Smt. Anima Burnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 17.05.2016 Order

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 164Section 234

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Society of Automobile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward-II, Manufacturers, Core-4B, 5th Floor, New Delhi Indian Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAATS4258A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. Rupesh Jain, Gaurav Jain & Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Advocates. Respondent by Smt. Anima Burnwal, Sr.DR Date of hearing 17.03.2016 Date of pronouncement 17.05.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal of the assessee is directed agains…

CIT v. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Judgments citing CIT v. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council