Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi?

22 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi (130 ITR 186), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(23C), Section 11, Section 12A, Section 12AB, Section 13(8), Section 2(15).

130 ITR 186Supreme Court of India1981#5182 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi authority for?

Activities are not considered to be for profit if their dominant purpose is the promotion, protection, and development of trade, commerce, and industry, even if they involve income-generating activities like conducting trade fairs or collecting fees.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries · 130 ITR 186 · Section 2(15) · Section 11 · charitable purpose · object of general public utility · dominant purpose test · carrying on activity for profit · income from trade fair · rent · arbitration fees

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)Section 11 Section 12A Section 12AB Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 251(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

proviso to section 2(15)section 2(15)section 11 previous year person company india business document interest

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi

Federation of European Business in India, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2446/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrafederation Of European Commissioner Of Income Business In India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari Lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 Pan: Aafcf5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi [‘Cit(E)’].

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 8

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Federation of European Commissioner of Income Business in India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 PAN: AAFCF5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This…

Sarswati Vidhya Pratishthan M.P, Bhupal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 392/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…itable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to s. 2(15) of the Act. this issue of assessee's appeal is allowed." Besides the above, we also rely in the case of the CIT Vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (1981) 130 ITR 186 (SC) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "Whatever reservations one may have regarding the correctness of the interpretation of the exclusionary clause in the definition of 'charitable purpose' in s. 2(15) of the Act, there can be no doubt that the majority decision in the Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures Assn.(197…

All India Liquid Bulk Impoerters & Exporters Asssociation, Mumbai vs. ADIT(E)-II(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1604/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleall India Liquid Bulk Vs. Adit(E)-Ii(2) Importers & Exporters Piramal Chambers, Association Lalbaug, Parel, 501- Mulratna, Mumbai – 400012. 334- Katha Bazar, Masjid, Mumbai – 400009. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca5018F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal: I. Confirmation Of Treatment Of The Non-Profit Organisation As A Mutual Concern & Denying Exemption U/S 11: 1. The Learned C1.T(A) Erred In Confirming Treatment Of The All Inida Liquid Bulk Importers & Exporters Association, Mumbai. Appellant As A Mutual Association Created Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Basic Conditions Of The Concept Of Mutuality Are Not Satisfied, Hence The Same Is Not Applicable To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 25

…ead of charity, viz the advancement of any other object of general public utility, so as to make the carrying on of business activity merely ancillary or incidental to the main object. Further, in CIT v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industries (130 ITR 186) (SC) a question was raised before the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" in the definition of "charitable purpose" contained in section 2(15) of the Act. 10. Further the Hon’ble Tribunal considered the facts, provisions of law, judicial decisions and granted the rel…

Shri Digamber Jain, Bhopal vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

ITA 289/IND/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ab)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…d. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Deccan Gymkhana (Oldesty Trust) v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 459/131 Taxman 279 (Bom) as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Federation of India Chamber of Commerce & Industry [1981] 130 ITR 186/6 Taxman 7 has laid down that a distinction has to be made between the 'purpose' of a Trust and the 'powers' conferred upon the Trustees as being incidental to accomplish the purpose of the Trust. The amendments should only enable the Trustees to carry out activities for accomplishing the purpose of the Trust, which is for a 'charitable purpos…

Shri Digamber Jain, Chulgiri Bhopal vs. CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

ITA 287/IND/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ab)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1174/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth

Section 1Section 11Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos. 1174 & 1175/Mum/2015 and 5834 & 5835/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15) Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Income-tax Officer (Exemptions)- Industry 1(1), 5th Floor, Room No. 505, Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, Vs. 4, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 PAN/GIR No. AABCB 2270 M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Niraj Sheth Shri Ketan Ved : Shri Suresh Periasamy Respondent by Date…

Confederation of Pharma Dealers Association, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/RPR/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 219/Rpr/2019)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.-D.R

Section 11Section 12Section 2(15)

…k Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC) iii. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 704 (SC) iv. CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) v. CIT vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (1981) 130 ITR 186 (SC) vi. All India Rubber Industries Association vs. Addl.CIT & Ors. (2018) 173 ITD 615 (Mumbai-Trib.) vii. CEO Clubs India vs. DIT (Exemption) (2012) 32 CCH 0405 (Mumbai-Trib.) viii. Agricultural Produce & Market Committee, Telhara & Ors. vs. CIT (2005) 24 CCH (Mumbai) 0350 (Nagpur-Trib.) ix. CIT vs. Chhattisgarh Urology Society (2018) 303 CTR 2…

Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exe)-1 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5832/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5832/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Bombay Chamber Of Commerce & The Income-Tax Officer Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, 4, (Exemptions)-1(1), फनाभ/ Room No. 508, 5 Th Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcb2270M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi & Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Drs’ ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi &

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री भनोज कुभाय अग्रवार, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 5832/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Bombay Chamber of Commerce & The Income-tax Officer Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, 4, (Exemptions)-1(1), फनाभ/ Room No. 508, 5 th Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. parel, Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा…

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

…ation (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 Society vs. CIT (372 ITR 699) Indian Trade Promotion Organization vs D.G.(374 ITR 333) GS1 vs. D.G. (360 ITR 138) Institute of Development of Research Banking Technology Vs. ADI…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. Indian Ports Association, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1295/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1295/DEL/2017 Assessment Year 2012-13 Income Tax Officer (E), v. Indian Ports Association, Ward-1(2), 19, Institutional Area, New Delhi. Lodhi Road, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAATI0349A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA. Date of hearing: 10 02 2020 Date of pronouncement: 17 02 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned o…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Indian Ports Association, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh, [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…not rendered any the less an object of general public utility. Echoing these sentiments another Bench of equal strength of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi 1981) 130 ITR 186 held that where the main object of the assessee was the promotion, protection and development of trade, commerce and industry in India, its income from conducting a trade fair, rent for space allotted and sale of entry and gate tickets, fees for arbitration etc. would be exempted 7 from tax under Section 11 read with Section 2(15) of the Act. Th…

M/S. Orissa Cricket Association, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

ITA 210/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

Section 120Section 12ASection 254(2)

…er upholding its earlier view in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (supra), it was also held by a majority decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (130 ITR 186) dated 15/04/1981 that the income derived by the respondent from the activities, such as holding the Indian Trade Fair and sponsoring the Conference of the Afro-Asian Organisation, were for the advancement of the dominant object and purpose of the Federation, viz., promotion, protection and development of trade, commerce and industry in India, an…

ACIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Peoples Forum, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objections filed

ITA 325/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010 Acit (Exemptions), Aayakar Vs. M/S. Peoples Forum, Plot Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. No.Hig 44, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aaatp 2214 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 288A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2009-2010 ACIT (Exemptions), Aayakar Vs. M/s. Peoples Forum, Plot Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. No.HIG 44, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. AAATP 2214 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) C.O.No.45/CTK/2015 (rising out of ITA No.325/CTK/2015) Assessment Year :2009-2010 M/s. Peoples Forum, Plot Vs. ACIT (Exemptions), Aayakar No.HIG 44, Dharma Vihar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. AAATP 2214 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwal, AR Reven…

M/S. Hero'S Education and Welfare Society, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 232/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 68

…e decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Mfg. I.T.A.No. 232/Ind/2015-A.Y.2010-11 M/S.HERO’S EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL. Page 6 of 29 Association, 121 ITR 1 ( S.C.) and Federation of Indian Chambers and Commerce Industries, 130 ITR 186 ( S.C.) in which it was held “if the dominant or primary purpose of the association is charitable, the subsidiary object would not mitigate against the charitable character. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further placed reliance in the case of Harf Charitable Trust, 63 taxmann.com 53 (P&H), could carry on other business as de…

M/S. All India Resort Development Association, Bangalore vs. ADIT (E), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6479/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiall India Resort Development Adit(E) Association, No. 582, 1St Floor, Inves. Cir,-1, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 6Th Cross, 11Th Main Hal, 2Nd Aayakar Bhawan, Distt. Stage, Bangalore Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Pan:Aaaaa4550A Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. M. Vishwanathan, CA

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

…of any other object of general public utility”. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in appreciating the cases cited in support of the stand of the appellant. (i) CIT Vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722. (ii) Federation of Chambers of Commerce & Industry 130 ITR 186 (SC) 4. The appellant therefore prays that the proposal to be made by the learned CIT (A) for withdrawal of registration u/s 12A may be reversed.” 3. The above appeal is recalled by the order of the coordinate bench in MA No. 55/del/2014 dated 19/09/2014. The brief facts of the issue are that Page 2 of 6 appellant is an Association of persons reg…

M/S Credai Bengal, Kolkata vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal allowed

ITA 381/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years:2011-12

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 263

…itable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to s. 2(15) of the Act. this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” Besides the above, we also rely in the case of the CIT Vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (1981) 130 ITR 186 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “Whatever reservations one may have regarding the correctness of the interpretation of the exclusionary clause in the definition of ‘charitable purpose' in s. 2(15) of the Act, there can be no doubt that the majority decision in the Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures Assn. (197…

The Indian Merchants Chambers, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -II(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4076/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4076/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) The Indian Merchants Chambers, Vs. Ddit(Exemption)-Ii(1), Imc Building, Imc Marg, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400020 Parel, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati 00047 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.S.Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/ 06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Basically Aggrieved For Decline Of Exemption U/S.11 On The Plea That Proviso To Section 2(15) Was Applicable To The Assessee Which Was Introduced W.E.F. Assessment Year 2009-2010. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Registered As A Company U/S.25 Of The Companies Act, 1956. The Main Objects Of The Assessee Trust Inter Alia Are To Promote, Advance & Protect Trade, Commerce & Industry In India. The Ao Held That The Assessee Was Not Imparting Education In Pursuance Of Its Objects. He Held That The Activity Of Organizing Seminars, The Definition Of Education. The Assessee Was Running Certain Seminars

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri V.S.Jadhav

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 25Section 28

…ges Bench, by a majority of 4 to 1, in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (121 ITR 1 S.C) and the majority decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (130 ITR 186 S.C) was not applicable to the case of the appellant in view of the amendment in the said section 2(15) of the Act without appreciating the basic principle laid down by the Court based on the facts of the case. 7. That on the acts and the circumstances of the case of the appellant the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the TDS disallowance of Rs.2,5…

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3031/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Assessment Year : 2010-11 Bhansali Trust, The Ito (Exemp.)1(1), Ee-7010 Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400 050 Pan Aaatb1718N (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr K ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri N P Singh

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 35ASection 50A

…utility not involving carrying on any activity for profit. In fact, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Deccan Gymkhana vs. CIT, 262 ITR 459 (Bom) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry vs. DIT,130 ITR 186 (SC) has laid down that a distinction has to be made between the ‘purpose’ of a Trust and the ‘powers’ conferred upon the Trustees as being incidental to accomplish the purpose of the Trust. In our considered opinion, the amendments in 1975 &1979, which have been noticed above only seek to enable the Trustees to carry out activities for accomplis…

Civil Contractors Association, Mangalore vs. ITO, Mangalore

ITA 670/BANG/2014[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2015

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Edmond D’Souza, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT-DR-I

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

…e assessee with that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions relied on by the assessee namely …CIT Vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Associations (1980) 121 ITR 01 and also in the case of CIT Vs Federation of India Chambers of Commerce & Industry (1981) 130 ITR 186. The CIT observed that in both the cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the primary purpose is an object of general public utility, whereas in the case of the assessee the primary object i.e first object as per the MOA is to put an effort towards growth and protect professional welfare of “South Canara Civil Contractors”. Hence, it was I…