Commissioner of Income Tax-ll v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti

12 SCC 267Reported decision2012#4781 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax-ll v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti authority for?

An authority's activities do not lose their charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity, provided the predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not to earn profit. Surplus funds generated are to be used for the established charitable objects.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax-ll v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti · charitable purpose · predominant object · profit arising · Section 12-A · Mandi Samities · charitable character

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax-ll v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. ACIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 185/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…evy/cess/fee. Whatever surplus remains in market fund would come back for carrying on the object for which Mandi Samities are established. 10.2 The aforesaid judgement of High Court has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appeal reported in (2012) 12 SCC 267. If the predominant object is to carry out charitable purpose and not to earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity [CIT v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC), Thiagrajan Charities v. Addl. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 1010 (SC), Girijan Co-operative Corpo…

Lucknow Evelopment Authority, Lucknow vs. I.T.O., Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 164/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…evy/cess/fee. Whatever surplus remains in market fund would come back for carrying on the object for which Mandi Samities are established. 10.2 The aforesaid judgement of High Court has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appeal reported in (2012) 12 SCC 267. If the predominant object is to carry out charitable purpose and not to earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity [CIT v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC), Thiagrajan Charities v. Addl. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 1010 (SC), Girijan Co-operative Corpo…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 163/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…evy/cess/fee. Whatever surplus remains in market fund would come back for carrying on the object for which Mandi Samities are established. 10.2 The aforesaid judgement of High Court has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appeal reported in (2012) 12 SCC 267. If the predominant object is to carry out charitable purpose and not to earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity [CIT v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC), Thiagrajan Charities v. Addl. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 1010 (SC), Girijan Co-operative Corpo…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Aligarh Development Authority (Ada), Aligarh

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 4263/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…t is duty of authority to formulate scheme in an area which is not developed and, therefore, application for such registration was sought for. He has relied on the decision of Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-ll Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, (2012) 12 SCC 267, and on judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lucknow Development Authority, (2014) 98 DTR 183, and contended that respondent had fulfilled the criterion for registration under Section 12-A of the Act. We find it unnecessary to go for much research work 18. and debate issue further for the reason that in respect to a similar authority, namel…