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

M/S Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh vs. ITO (Exemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 1382/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT (on 22.3.2018)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust.” It was therefore, held 33. The Supreme Court again considered the applicability of the last limb of the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ in the case of ‘CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board’ [2007] 295 ITR 561 [2008] 166 Taxman 58 (SC), the Court observed 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. ITA No. 1382/Chd/2016- Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh 40 34. The amendment brought by…

M/S Mcc Pta India Corpn. Pvt. Ltd., Purba Medinipur vs. ACIT, Cir-59, TDS, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 151/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012
Section 11Section 194Section 194ISection 201(1)

…ent of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 289 ITR 139 (Guj). The revenue’s appeal against the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC). 5. In such circumstances, we are of the view that Kolkata Port Trust is a charitable institution entitled for registration under section 12A of the Act. For assessment year 2007-08 involved in this appeal, Kolkata Port Trust was assessed in the status of a charitable institution and there was no demand raised against it and refund of the o…

Director of Income Tax (Exempt vs. The Delhi Public School Society

ITA/1086/2005HC Delhi03 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 1Section 10Section 260A

…ciation, which were alleged to not be in conformity with the objects of the Assessee, were undertaken in furtherance of DPS Society’s objectives. 8. The assessee also relied on the decision reported as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 where the Supreme Court, while deciding on the issue of similar registration of charitable trusts under section 12A of the Act, held that if the objects are per se charitable, the Revenue was duty bound to register the assessee trust/ society in terms of section 12A of the Act. Likewise, the decision of American Hotel & Lodging Association E…

M/S. Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association, Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

ITA 782/IND/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

Section 13Section 2Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE "ी च""मोहन गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket DCIT, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAATG3527C Appellant by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, & Shri Arpit Gaur (AR) Revenue by Shri Lal Chand (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GA…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Mumbai Metropolitan Vs. Director Of Income Tax Region Development (Exemptions), Mumbai Authority, Plot No. C-14 & 15, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaatm7106R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 263

…ue to finance the projects undertaken by it. 14. The CIT (A) has granted relief to the assessee following the appeal for earlier years relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana 300 ITR 214 and CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561. But the proviso to section 2( I 5) was inserted by the Finance Act 2008 with effect from April I, 2009. The second proviso was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from April 1,2009. The monetary limit in the second proviso was revised by the Finance Act 2011, with effect from Apri 11, 2012. Hence, while passing th…

M/S. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun vs. CIT, Dehradun

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

ITA 180/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2017

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh B. Chhibber, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…well as the show cause notice issued by ld CIT and reply of the assessee. Over and above, he also filed copy of decisions of various courts and Tribunals as under- 1. CIT Vs. Improvement Trust (2009) 308 ITR 361 (P&H) 2. CIT Vs. Gujarat maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC) 3. CIT, Lucknow Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (2010) 1 All LJ 817 4. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust Vs. ADIT (Exemption) ITA No. 671/Ahd/2013 order dated 01.02.2010 5. Pubjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. CIT (2006) 103 TTJ (Chd) 988. 6. Jalandhar Development Authority Vs. CIT (2009) 124 TTJ (Asr) 598 7. Haridwar Development…

M/S New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Noida vs. CIT(E), Lucknow

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 172/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M & Sh. O.P. Kant, Am Appeal No. 172/Del/2016

For Appellant: Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv alongwithFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI Before Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M and Sh. O.P. Kant, AM Appeal No. 172/DEL/2016 New Okhla Industrial | VS | CIT(E) Development Authority Lucknow Administrative Block, Sector-06, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN No. AAALNO120A Appellant by: Sh. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv alongwith Sh. Abinash Mehrotra, Adv, Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta, CA, Sh. Dinesh Verma, CA, and Ms. Raj Rani Lakra, CA, Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR. Date of final hearing : 18/05/2016 Date of pronouncement : 22 /07/2016 ORDER Per C.M. Garg, JM This appeal…

Martin Burn Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 40

…ent of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 289 ITR 139 (Guj). The revenue’s appeal against the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC). I.T.A. No. 1914/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 3 of 5 5. In such circumstances, we are of the view that Kolkata Port Trust is a charitable institution entitled for registration under section 12A of the Act. For assessment year 2007-08 involved in this appeal, Kolkata Port Trust was assessed in the status of a charitable instit…

Dy D.I.T. (E)-I(1), Mumbai vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 4177/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

…12A was right or wrong. The CIT (A) also held that a local authority was entitled to exemption under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the I.T. Act. He in this respect relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 and further on the conclusions derived in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. AP State Roadways Transport Corporation 159 ITR 1 and DIT vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse 259 ITR 280 and concluded that for the purpose of falling under section 11 it was not necessary that the status of assessee should be that of a Trust and any…

M/S. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. The ADIT(E) RG- 1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3841/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

…12A was right or wrong. The CIT (A) also held that a local authority was entitled to exemption under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the I.T. Act. He in this respect relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 295 ITR 561 and further on the conclusions derived in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. AP State Roadways Transport Corporation 159 ITR 1 and DIT vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse 259 ITR 280 and concluded that for the purpose of falling under section 11 it was not necessary that the status of assessee should be that of a Trust and any…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

ITTA/627/2015HC Telangana02 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

M/S. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh vs. CIT (E), Lucknow

The appeal is allowed

ITA 113/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2016

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: -- Greater Noida Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, H-169, Chitvan Estate, Lucknow. Sector-Gamma, Gr. Noida City, District – Gautam Budh Nagar. Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalg0129L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: - - Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, First Floor, Commercial Complex, Lucknow. P-2, Sector-Omega 1, Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalt0341D) Assessee By: S/Shri Balbir Singh & Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv., Sk Gupta & Ms. Raj Rani, Cas. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

For Appellant: S/Shri Balbir Singh & AbhinavFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar, CIT( DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 6

…ion of commercial complex by charitable trust is eligible. If the objects of the "Authority" is charitable as public utility then the benefit being a charitable trust is eligible as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC), where it was observed that: "... 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 connotation. The word "general" in the said expression means pertaining to a whole class. Therefore, advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a se…

Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Group Vocational

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/199/2015HC Karnataka23 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 12ASection 12aSection 13Section 2(15)Section 260

…to the unskilled and unemployed others who are to benefit by future employment, from such training rendered to them. In coming to this view, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC) wherein at para 10 &11, it held as under:- “10. We have perused number of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the words, in section 2(15), namely, ‘any other object of generally public utility’. From the said decisions it emerges that the said expression is of the widest connotation. The word ‘general’ in the said expr…

Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T ( Exemption) -II, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)

…the status of the assessee created by legislature as an institution carrying on activities of general public utility. For this, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cased of CIT Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the expression “any other object of general public utility” in section 2(15) of the Act, is of the widest connotation. That expression would prima facie include all objects which promote the welfare of the general public. It cannot be said that a purpose would cease to be charitable even if publ…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S E Dastur &For Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…claim for exemption u/s 11 on the reasoning that, in the earlier years the first appellate authorities after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Surat City Gymkhana [2008] 300 ITR 214 and CIT vs Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 56, had allowed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that the registration u/s 12AA has not been 4 Slum Rehabilitation Authority cancelled. Not only that the Tribunal has also decided this issue in favour of the assessee in the earlier years. The Ld. CIT(A) had referred and relied upon the order of the Tribunal for the AY 2007- 08. Thereafter, in the…

M/s. PCL-STICCO Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/389/2011HC Telangana29 Nov 2011
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…1961 as charitable institutions for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Chapter-III. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Ranka also cited before us a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board reported in (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC) wherein their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the case of Gujarat Maritime Board which had prior to the Finance Act, 2002 been enjoying the exemption under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as in the case of the present Samities. The Gujarat Maritime Board as a consequence of the amendment intr…

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)

…HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel 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…

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

ITTA/318/2008HC 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)

…HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel 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…