CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board

295 ITR 561Supreme Court of India2007#1157 most cited

What is CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board authority for?

A statutory corporation undertaking activities that generate income qualifies as a charitable entity under Section 2(15) if its dominant object is general public utility and it is legally obligated to apply its income solely for that purpose, even if the activities appear to be in the nature of trade or business. Such an entity is entitled to registration under Section 12A and exemptions under Section 11.

98

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Gujarat Maritime Board · 295 ITR 561 · Section 2(15) · Section 11 · Section 12A · Section 10(46) · charitable purpose · general public utility · statutory corporation · profit motive · application of income

Also reported as

166 Taxmann 58214 CTR 81

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 10(46)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205advancement of general public utilitysection 10(23c)(iv)section 10(20a)section 36(1)(v)section 10(46)section 73proviso to section 2(15)section 11(4a)section 52section 2(15)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board

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

…Board of Directors administrating the affairs of the assessee on day to day basis. Therefore applying the ratio of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (159 ITR 1) and in CIT V/s Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561), it was the predominant objective which was required to be considered while CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 examining the true nature of assessee’s activities. Finally, the assessee was held to be entitled for deduction u/s 11 / 12 with the observations that fees collected by the assessee from member-units was to meet the expenditure while providing…

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

…Board of Directors administrating the affairs of the assessee on day to day basis. Therefore applying the ratio of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (159 ITR 1) and in CIT V/s Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561), it was the predominant objective which was required to be considered while CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 examining the true nature of assessee’s activities. Finally, the assessee was held to be entitled for deduction u/s 11 / 12 with the observations that fees collected by the assessee from member-units was to meet the expenditure while providing…

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

…Board of Directors administrating the affairs of the assessee on day to day basis. Therefore applying the ratio of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (159 ITR 1) and in CIT V/s Gujarat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561), it was the predominant objective which was required to be considered while CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 examining the true nature of assessee’s activities. Finally, the assessee was held to be entitled for deduction u/s 11 / 12 with the observations that fees collected by the assessee from member-units was to meet the expenditure while providing…

Agra Development Authority, Agra vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 124Section 142Section 153

…g any charitable institution surplus is in any way an essential part without which no charitable activity is possible. Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (121 ITR 1) ACIT vs. Thanthi Trust (247 ITR 785) CIT vs Gujrat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) CIT vs. Pulikkal Medical Foundation (210 ITR 299) CIT vs. Andhara Chamber of Commerce (551 ITR 722) CIT vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (130 ITR 186) CST vs. Sai Publication Fund (258 ITR 70) ICAI Accounting Research Foundation vs. D.G. (321 ITR 73) CIT vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corp (159 ITR 1) Queens Educational So…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Corpn Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2877/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgan, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 617

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2877, 2878, 2879 & 2882/Mum/2019 (AYs: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15) & Cross Objection Nos. 39, 40, 41 & 44/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 2877, 2878, 2879 & 2882/Mum/2019) DCIT (2) 2(1) Mumbai Railway Vikas बनाम/ R.No. 519, 5th Floor, Vs. Corpn Ltd., 2nd Floor, Churchgate Piramal, chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Station Bldg, Mumbai. 400012. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCM1284B Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant अपीलाथ" ओर से /…

Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi vs. ACIT Circle-4, Agra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 149/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…activity involving the providing of some sort of public utility services will claim exemption if total receipt of such institution does not exceed the prescribed limit. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board' [2007] 295 ITR 561/[2008] 166 Taxman 58, that he expression 'any other object of general public utility' is of the widest connotation. The expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the welfare of the general public. 61. A company or trust involved in the insurance business for profit will claim that the object, purpose and activity of the insur…

ACIT Circle-4, Agra vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 355/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…activity involving the providing of some sort of public utility services will claim exemption if total receipt of such institution does not exceed the prescribed limit. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board' [2007] 295 ITR 561/[2008] 166 Taxman 58, that he expression 'any other object of general public utility' is of the widest connotation. The expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the welfare of the general public. 61. A company or trust involved in the insurance business for profit will claim that the object, purpose and activity of the insur…

Jhasi Development Authority, Jhansi vs. Dy. C.I.T., Circle-4, Agra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 256/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…activity involving the providing of some sort of public utility services will claim exemption if total receipt of such institution does not exceed the prescribed limit. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board' [2007] 295 ITR 561/[2008] 166 Taxman 58, that he expression 'any other object of general public utility' is of the widest connotation. The expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the welfare of the general public. 61. A company or trust involved in the insurance business for profit will claim that the object, purpose and activity of the insur…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Corpn Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2883/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(25)

…CO No 45/Mum/20 ITA No. 2883/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 38 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'D' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member)] ITA No. 2883/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), Mumbai ……………….………Appellant Vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Nigam Limited ……………………Respondent 2nd floor, Churchgate Station Building Churchgate, Mumbai 400 00 [PAN: AACCM1284B] CO No 45/Mum/20 In ITA No. 2883/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2015-16 Mumbai Railway Vikas Nigam Limited ……………….…Cross objector 2nd floor, Church…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Corpn Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2881/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(25)

…CO No 43/Mum/20 ITA No. 2881/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2013-14 Page 1 of 38 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'D' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member)] ITA No. 2881/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), Mumbai ……………….………Appellant Vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Nigam Limited ……………………Respondent 2nd floor, Churchgate Station Building Churchgate, Mumbai 400 00 [PAN: AACCM1284B] CO No 43/Mum/20 In ITA No. 2881/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2013-14 Mumbai Railway Vikas Nigam Limited ……………….…Cross objector 2nd floor, Churc…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Corpn Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2880/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(25)Section 617

…CO No 42/Mum/20 ITA No. 2880/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 37 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'D' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member)] ITA No. 2880/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), Mumbai ……………….………Appellant Vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Nigam Limited ……………………Respondent 2nd floor, Churchgate Station Building Churchgate, Mumbai 400 00 [PAN: AACCM1284B] CO No 42/Mum/20 In ITA No. 2880/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Mumbai Railway Vikas Nigam Limited ……………….…Cross objector 2nd floor, Churc…

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 895/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 894/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2012-13) आअसं. 895/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2014-15) Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Office Of Finance Controller, Mhada Griha Nirman Bhavan, 4Th Floor,. Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan:Aaajm0344H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit (Exemption) -2(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 012. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Purushottam Tripuri सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2020 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2020

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…d of authorities which were earlier enjoying exemptions under the Act. However, this proposition of Mr. Dave, Ld. Special Counsel for the revenue seems to have been rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Maritime Board as reported in (2007) 295 ITR 561, wherein their Lordships in the context of section 10(20) observed that section 10(20) and section 11 operate in totally different field and even if the authority or board ceased to be a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption u/s. 11(1). Thus, post deletion of the provisions of section 10(20) and 10(20A), all the activities…

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Mumbai vs. ACIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 894/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 894/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2012-13) आअसं. 895/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2014-15) Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Office Of Finance Controller, Mhada Griha Nirman Bhavan, 4Th Floor,. Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan:Aaajm0344H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Acit (Exemption) -2(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 012. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Purushottam Tripuri सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2020 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2020

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…d of authorities which were earlier enjoying exemptions under the Act. However, this proposition of Mr. Dave, Ld. Special Counsel for the revenue seems to have been rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Maritime Board as reported in (2007) 295 ITR 561, wherein their Lordships in the context of section 10(20) observed that section 10(20) and section 11 operate in totally different field and even if the authority or board ceased to be a local authority, it is not precluded from claiming exemption u/s. 11(1). Thus, post deletion of the provisions of section 10(20) and 10(20A), all the activities…

National Payments Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 3382/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Soli E.Dastur (Ld. Sr. Counsel)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-CIT- DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12Section 13Section 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

…Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2012-13 National Payments Corporation of India आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5431/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3382/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) National Payments Corporation of India DCIT(E)-2(1) 1001-A, B-Wing, 10th Floor बनाम/ Room No.510, 5th Floor The Capital, Bandra-Kur…

National Payments Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 5431/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Soli E.Dastur (Ld. Sr. Counsel)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-CIT- DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12Section 13Section 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

…Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2012-13 National Payments Corporation of India आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5431/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3382/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) National Payments Corporation of India DCIT(E)-2(1) 1001-A, B-Wing, 10th Floor बनाम/ Room No.510, 5th Floor The Capital, Bandra-Kur…

The Dy. CIT., Gnr Circle, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, Gandhinagar

In the result, this ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 91/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri H.P. Singh, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma & Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.Rs
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…e above referred case is reproduced as under:- “7.5 From going through the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench which is relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, that too in assessee's own case, i.e., CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, reported in (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the appellant is established for the predominant purposes of development of minor ports within the State of Gujarat, the management and control of the Board is essentially with the State Government and there is no profit motive, as indicated by the provisions of section 73, 74 and 75 of the 1…

Gujarat Maritime Board, Gandhinagar vs. The Jt.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, this ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2991/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri H.P. Singh, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma & Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.Rs
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…e above referred case is reproduced as under:- “7.5 From going through the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench which is relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, that too in assessee's own case, i.e., CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, reported in (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the appellant is established for the predominant purposes of development of minor ports within the State of Gujarat, the management and control of the Board is essentially with the State Government and there is no profit motive, as indicated by the provisions of section 73, 74 and 75 of the 1…

Gemmological Institute of India, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (E) RG -II, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5133/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh- Ld. DR
Section 11Section 2(15)

…Act, 2010 added 2nd proviso to provide that 1st proviso shall not apply if the aggregate value of the receipts from the activities referred to therein was below Rs.10 Lacs in the previous year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007 295 ITR 561] observed that the expression 'any other object of general public utility' is of the widest connotation. This expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the welfare of the general public. 1.2 The CBDT, vide Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19/12/2008, clarified that the first proviso will apply only to those entities whose purpos…

M/S. the Andhra Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Colleges Management Associons, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/VIZ/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: - ) M/S Andhra Pradesh Private Medical Vs. Income Tax Officer & Dental Colleges Management (Exemptions) Association Rajahmundry D.No.52/1/1-5/B Road No.5, Veterinary Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Aaeat2041H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR
Section 12ASection 15Section 2Section 80G

…Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax –III, Hyderabad (2012) 356 ITR 360 (AP) 5 I.T.A. No.162/Viz/2016 M/s Andhra Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Colleges Management Associaiton, Vijayawada (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State Urban Development Agency (SUDA) (2013) 218 Taxman 146 (All) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax Andhra Pradesh-II Vs. Andhra Pradesh Police Welfare Society (1971) 82 ITR 704(SC) (vi) Bangalore Urban & Rural District Co-…

ADIT (E)I(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolian Region Development Authority, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 173/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar, DRFor Respondent: S/Shri JD Mistry
Section 11Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(3)

…issues made by the Assessing Officer and facts and circumstances of the case ? 3. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the Revenue's appeal by placing 5 reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “CIT Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, (295 ITR 56)” and the decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). In fact, while allowing the appeal, the impugned order records as under:- “14. The facts of assessee are similar to the other two institutions considered by the Coordinate Be…