Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund

258 ITR 70Supreme Court of India2002#1832 most cited

What is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund authority for?

If a charitable organization's dominant activity is not business, then any incidental or ancillary activity performed to achieve its main object will also not be considered 'business,' even if it generates income, provided the primary activity is not driven by a profit intent.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund · Sai Publication Fund · charitable trust business · dominant activity · incidental activity · ancillary activity · not business · profit intent · section 2(13) · section 2(15) proviso · charitable purpose

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)mutuality principlesection 205section 2(13)advancement of general public utilitysection 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)section 13(8)section 11(4a)section 11(6)section 2(11)proviso to section 2(15)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…s (Pathak, J.) in Dharmadeepti v. CIT (supra), must be "essentially charitable in nature" and it must not be a cover for carrying on an activity which has profit making as its predominant object.” ∗ In Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Sai Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC), it was held as follows: 10. …………. From the facts of the present case, the sole object of the assessee-trust is to spread the message of Saibaba of Shirdi. It is also not disputed that the books and literature, etc., containing the message of Saibaba were distributed by the trust to the devotees of Saibaba at cost price. There is no dispute…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…s (Pathak, J.) in Dharmadeepti v. CIT (supra), must be "essentially charitable in nature" and it must not be a cover for carrying on an activity which has profit making as its predominant object.” ∗ In Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Sai Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC), it was held as follows: 10. …………. From the facts of the present case, the sole object of the assessee-trust is to spread the message of Saibaba of Shirdi. It is also not disputed that the books and literature, etc., containing the message of Saibaba were distributed by the trust to the devotees of Saibaba at cost price. There is no dispute…

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

…47 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 (E) (Page 17-26 of P.B.-1) ITA No.216/Agr…

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

…facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business." In the aforesaid decision, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST v. Sai Publication Fund! [2002] 258 ITR 70/122 Taxman 437, it is held by the Delhi High Cow that "thus, if the dominant activity of the assessee was not business, the] anv incidental or ancillary activity would also not fall within M definition of business." In para 64, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 the Delhi Hie Court has observed and held as under: "64. It is not necessary that a person should…

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)

…s and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business." 12.6 In the aforesaid decision, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST v. Sai Publication Fund! [2002] 258 ITR 70/122 Taxman 437, it is held by the Delhi High Cow that "thus, if the dominant activity of the assessee was not business, the] anv incidental or ancillary activity would also not fall within M definition of business." In para 64, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 the Delhi Hie Court has observed and held as under: "64. It is not necessary that a person should g…

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)

…s and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business." 12.6 In the aforesaid decision, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST v. Sai Publication Fund! [2002] 258 ITR 70/122 Taxman 437, it is held by the Delhi High Cow that "thus, if the dominant activity of the assessee was not business, the] anv incidental or ancillary activity would also not fall within M definition of business." In para 64, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 the Delhi Hie Court has observed and held as under: "64. It is not necessary that a person should g…

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

…s and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business." 12.6 In the aforesaid decision, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST v. Sai Publication Fund! [2002] 258 ITR 70/122 Taxman 437, it is held by the Delhi High Cow that "thus, if the dominant activity of the assessee was not business, the] anv incidental or ancillary activity would also not CO No 42/Mum/20 ITA No. 2880/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 15 of 37 fall within M definition of business." In para 64, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 the Delhi Hie Court has…

M/S. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur vs. Add.CIT. Range-2, Jaipur

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

…aid matches never had any element at any stage of any business but the same is incidental to promote the game of Cricket. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70 where while interpreting the word “Business” in the context of section 2(5A) of the Bombay Sales tax Act 1959, it was held that “the inclusion of the incidental or ancillary activity in the definition of business pre-supposes the existence of trade, commerce and business. Thus the dominant activity of the assessee was not business than any inciden…

DCIT (E) 2 (1), Mumbai vs. J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai

In the result, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error and the Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A. Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263Section 80G

…hould be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC): [2002] 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is that whether the petitioner-Institute pursues the activity of business, trade or commerce. To our…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1355/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…e, commerce and business" are etymological chameleon and suit their meanings to the context in which they are found. Five tests propounded in Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Lord Fisher [1981] STC 238 and the decision in CST v. Sai Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC) ; [2002] 4 SCC 57 was quoted. 19. The final and determining factors, it was observed was consequential profit motive or purpose behind the activity and when an activity is trade, commerce or business was elucidated in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Director-General of Income-tax (Exemptions) [2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) in the fo…

J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E) 2 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1564/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri NiranjanFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh
Section 12ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)

…d show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai 21 I.T.A. No. 1564 & 3084/Mum/2019 J. K. Trust Bombay Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC): [2002] 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is that whether the petitioner-Institute pursues the activity of business, trade or commerce. To our…

DCIT (E) 2 (1), Mumbai vs. J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 3084/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri NiranjanFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh
Section 12ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)

…d show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai 21 I.T.A. No. 1564 & 3084/Mum/2019 J. K. Trust Bombay Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC): [2002] 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is that whether the petitioner-Institute pursues the activity of business, trade or commerce. To our…

Rajastha Gau Sewa Sangh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 113/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 748/Jp/2015 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 (U/S 254/12Aa(1)(B)Of I.T. Act 1961) Cuke M/S. Rajasthan Gau Seva Sangh The Cit(Exemptions) Vs. Durgapura, Tonk Road,Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aaatr 0809 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 113/Jp/2014 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cuke M/S. Rajasthan Gau Seva Sangh The Ito Vs. Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur Ward- 6(2),Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aaatr 0809 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca & Shri O.P. Agarwal, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11-09-2015 Of Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Jaipur Passed U/S 12Aa(1)(B) Of The Act As Well As Order Dated 17-12-2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CA and Shri O.P. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(a)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 254

…ble continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in Raipur Manufacturing Company (1967) 19 STC 1 (SC) and Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70 (SC); (2002) 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher (1981) STC 238 (sic) are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts.' (Emphasis supplied) 17. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning set out by the Gujarat High Court in its order dated 15th January, 2014 in DIT…

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Rajasthan Cricekt Association, Jaipur

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 1356/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

…aid matches never had any element at any stage of any business but the same is incidental to promote the game of Cricket. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70 where while interpreting the word “Business” in the context of section 2(5A) of the Bombay Sales tax Act 1959, it was held that “the inclusion of the incidental or ancillary activity in the definition of business pre-supposes the existence of trade, commerce and business. Thus the dominant activity of the assessee was not business than any inciden…

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 1355/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

…aid matches never had any element at any stage of any business but the same is incidental to promote the game of Cricket. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70 where while interpreting the word “Business” in the context of section 2(5A) of the Bombay Sales tax Act 1959, it was held that “the inclusion of the incidental or ancillary activity in the definition of business pre-supposes the existence of trade, commerce and business. Thus the dominant activity of the assessee was not business than any inciden…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, (Exemption) Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Alok Singh, CIT.D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 2(15)

…ss. " ITA Nos. 2425 to 2428/Ahd/17 [Jamnagar Area Development Authority] - 13 - 12.6. In the aforesaid decision, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Sai Publication Fund reported in (2002) 258 ITR 70(SC), it is held by the Delhi High Court that "thus, if the dominant activity of the assessee was not business, then any incidental or ancillary activity would also not tall within the definition of business." In para 64, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 the Delhi High Court has observer and held as under: "64. It is not necessary that a person should give s…

M/S.Sree Narayanan Dharma Paripalana Yuvajana Samithy, Thrissur vs. The ITO ( Exemptions), Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 436/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…bject for which the organization was created is alone to be considered for the purpose for determining whether the nature of I.T.A. Nos. 435&436/Coch/2019 activities fall within the scope and ambit of 'charity'. Further, in CST v. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70, it was held that if the main activity is not business, then any transaction incidental or ancillary would not normally amount to business. 3.3 The Ld. AR made reference to the reply of the Hon'ble Finance Minister to the debate in the Lok Sabha on the Finance Bill. 2008 that the intention is to limit the benefit to entitled which are engaged in…

M/S.Sree Narayanan Dharma Paripalana Yuvajana Samithy, Thrissur vs. The ITO ( Exemptions), Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 435/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…bject for which the organization was created is alone to be considered for the purpose for determining whether the nature of I.T.A. Nos. 435&436/Coch/2019 activities fall within the scope and ambit of 'charity'. Further, in CST v. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70, it was held that if the main activity is not business, then any transaction incidental or ancillary would not normally amount to business. 3.3 The Ld. AR made reference to the reply of the Hon'ble Finance Minister to the debate in the Lok Sabha on the Finance Bill. 2008 that the intention is to limit the benefit to entitled which are engaged in…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Animal Breeding Research Organization, (India), Anand

In the result, this tax appeal is dismissed

ITA 2639/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 44ASection 80G(5)

…ble continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in Raipur Manufacturing Company [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and Soi Publication fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC); {2002} 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is tht whether the petitioner-Institute pursues the activity of business, trade or commerce. To our m…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Animal Breeding Research Organization, (India), Anand

In the result, this tax appeal is dismissed

ITA 773/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…ble continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in Raipur Manufacturing Company [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and Soi Publication fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC); {2002} 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is tht whether the petitioner-Institute pursues the activity of business, trade or commerce. To our m…