CST v. Sai Publication Fund

4 SCC 57High Court2002#5611 most cited

What is CST v. Sai Publication Fund authority for?

An ancillary transaction does not amount to business if the main activity of a person is not business, unless an intention to the contrary is established. The determination of whether an activity constitutes 'business' is based on the facts and circumstances of each case, irrespective of profit motive.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CST v. Sai Publication Fund · business income · ancillary transactions · main activity · profit motive · facts and circumstances · Section 2(5-A) · definition of business

Also reported as

122 Taxmann 437

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23EC)Section 11Section 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)corpus fundsection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)proviso to section 2(15)section 2(15)section 12aacross objectionsection 10section 12asection 12scrutiny assessment

Judgments citing CST v. Sai Publication Fund

ITO (E) Ward 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Acharya Shri Vijay Surendra Surishwarji Jain Tatwa Gyan Shala, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is partly allowed

ITA 2334/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2334/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Vs. Acharya Shri Vijay Surendra Ward-1, Surishwarji Jain Tatwa Gyan Ahmedabad Shala, Sambhav Nathni Khadki, Jhaveri Vad Relief Road, Ahmedabad-380013 [PAN No.AAATA2639R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) None Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri C Dharnidas V. S., Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2026 21.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: Th…

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Hes Jv, Madhapur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 688/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ally construed and restrictions placed on it by way of exception should be construed in a reasonable and purposive manner so as to advance the objective of the provision. The decision in State of Jharkhand v. Tata Cummins Ltd. 51 NCC HES JV, Madhapur (2006) 4 SCC 57/2008 taxmann.com 1129 (SC) was also referred which related to a matter dealing with a tax exemption for setting up an industry in a backward area wherein it was held as follows:- "16. Before analysing the above policy read with the notifications, it is important to bear in mind the connotation of the word "tax". A tax is a payment for raising genera…

Celestial Avenues Pvt Ltd Rep. by Csk Properties Pvt Ltd on Merger-PAN-Aadcc3990R, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 212/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA Nos.212 to 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09) M/s. SABIR, SEW & The Deputy Commissioner of PRASAD, JV, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. PAN : ABCFS2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘D’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) ITA No. 3195/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Multi Commodity Exchange Tax (Exemptions) – 2(1), Investor Protection Fund Mumbai vs Exchange Square, CTS No. 255, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400093. PAN: AADTM 1169 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3198/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘D’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) ITA No. 3195/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Multi Commodity Exchange Tax (Exemptions) – 2(1), Investor Protection Fund Mumbai vs Exchange Square, CTS No. 255, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400093. PAN: AADTM 1169 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3197/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘D’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) ITA No. 3195/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Multi Commodity Exchange Tax (Exemptions) – 2(1), Investor Protection Fund Mumbai vs Exchange Square, CTS No. 255, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400093. PAN: AADTM 1169 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3195/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘D’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) ITA No. 3195/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Dy. Commissioner of Income Multi Commodity Exchange Tax (Exemptions) – 2(1), Investor Protection Fund Mumbai vs Exchange Square, CTS No. 255, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400093. PAN: AADTM 1169 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/85/2024HC Calcutta25 Sept 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 80I

…f the industrial policy. In such a case, the exemption notifications have to be read liberally keeping in mind the objects envisaged 17 (1989) Supp 2 SCC 523 18 (1992) 3 SCC 78 19 (2006) 4 SCC 57 ITAT NOS. 85 OF 2024 AND 86 OF 2024 REPORTABLE Page 13 of 21 by the industrial policy and not in a strict sense as in the case of exemptions from tax liability under the taxing statute." 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the Hon’ble Five Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Custo…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd

In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/86/2024HC Calcutta25 Sept 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 80I

…f the industrial policy. In such a case, the exemption notifications have to be read liberally keeping in mind the objects envisaged 17 (1989) Supp 2 SCC 523 18 (1992) 3 SCC 78 19 (2006) 4 SCC 57 ITAT NOS. 85 OF 2024 AND 86 OF 2024 REPORTABLE Page 13 of 21 by the industrial policy and not in a strict sense as in the case of exemptions from tax liability under the taxing statute." 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the Hon’ble Five Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Custo…

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 /…

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…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1355/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Dy. Commissioner of vs. Ernet India, Income Tax (Exemption), 10th Floor, Jeevan Prakash Circle-1(1), E-2 Block, Building, New Delhi. 25, K.G. Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAATE2202A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Respondent by: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava Date of hearing: 03 08 2020 Date of pronouncement: 26 08 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenu…

Gujarat Housing Board (Ghb), Ahmedabad vs. The D.C.I.T. (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3297/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Him) Of Denying Exemption To The Appellant’S Income U/S.11 & 12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed In The Appellant’S Return, On The Ground That The Appellant’S Case Attracted The First Proviso To Section 2(15) & In Turn, Sub-Section(8) Of Section 13 Of The Act.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ITA No. 3297/Ahd/2016 Gujarat Housing Board Vs. DCIT (Exemption) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President and Pramod Kumar, Vice President] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gujarat Housing Board (GHB) ................…………...........Appellant Pragtinagar, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380 013 [PAN : AAALG 0206 E] Vs. DCIT (Exemption) ...................................... Respondent Circle-1, Ahmedabad Appearances by: Vijay Ranjan, for the appellant Anshu Prakash, for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 31.10.2018 D…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2874/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2873 &2874/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) ADIT(E), Vs. Ernet India, 10th Floor, Jeevan Prakash TC-II, New Delhi Building, 25, KG Marg, New Delhi PAN:AAATE0202A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR Assessee by: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Deepashree Rao, Adv Date of Hearing 05/10/2017 Date of pronouncement 27/12/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the two appeals filed by the revenue against the o…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2873/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2873 &2874/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 and 2010-11) ADIT(E), Vs. Ernet India, 10th Floor, Jeevan Prakash TC-II, New Delhi Building, 25, KG Marg, New Delhi PAN:AAATE0202A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR Assessee by: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Deepashree Rao, Adv Date of Hearing 05/10/2017 Date of pronouncement 27/12/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the two appeals filed by the revenue against the o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Intec Corporation, New Delhi

ITA 5788/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, S. SeethavaranFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80

…s discussed in the preceding para. 29. The ld. AR for the assessee further contended that liberal interpretation is required to be given to section 80-IC and relied upon the judgment cited as State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Tata Cummins Ltd. & Anr. – (2006) 4 SCC 57. No doubt the Hon’ble 18 ITA No.5788/Del./2011 Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Tata Cummins Ltd. (supra) held that the exemption notification has to be given liberal interpretation keeping in mind the objects envisaged by the industrial policy and not in strict sense as the case of exemption from liability under the taxing stat…

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)

…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 following words (page 123)…

Director of Income Tax vs. Instt of Chartered Accountants of India

ITA - 869 / 2011HC Delhi19 Sept 2011
Section 10Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 260ASection 263

…of 22 circumstances of each particular case whether an inference could be raised that the assessee is carrying on the business of purchasing or selling of goods within the meaning of the statute.” 19. Further in CST v. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 4 SCC 57, the Supreme Court, in the context of statutory provision under consideration, has observed that if the main activity of a person is not business then any ancillary transaction would not amount to business unless an otherwise intention is established. It has also been held that irrespective of the profit motive, determination of the question w…

CST v. Sai Publication Fund (4 SCC 57) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax