GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)

360 ITR 138High Court2014#2247 most cited

What is GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption) authority for?

Charging fees, even when having regard to the economic status of beneficiaries, is permissible for the sustenance of charitable activities, provided it is necessary for operation and running expenses and does not amount to carrying on trade or commerce. This applies even after the introduction of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption) · 360 ITR 138 · section 2(15) · proviso to section 2(15) · charitable activities · trade or commerce · fees for sustenance · economic status of beneficiaries · profit motive · advancement of general public utility

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)(ii)Section 13(3)Section 2(15)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 10(23c)(iv)section 36(1)(v)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mlisection 2(15)section 10(23c)put to usesection 40a(3)

Judgments citing GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)

DCIT(E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs. Ernet India, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2460/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…y following the order of the Hon’ble High Court, who has upheld the order of the Tribunal holding that the same has to be laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. GSI India Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) reported in (2014) 360 ITR 138. Not only that again in the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 passed by the Tribunal vide their order dated 8.11.2018 for assessment year 2011-12 the Hon’ble High court has again confirmed the said order. It has been brought on record that for the assessment year 2012-13 also and again for the assessment year 2015-16 same orders have been fo…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…will be immaterial." 7. The Appellant also relies on the following other decisions of the High Courts and the Tribunals to support the proposition of the Appellant. 1 Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust Vs Asst DIT(E) (362 ITR 539) (Guj HC) 2 GS1 India v. DGIT(E)(360 ITR 138)(Del HC) 3 Moradabad Development Authority v. ACIT (E)(168 ITD 564 4 Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) 5 Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust v. ITO (155 ITD 570) 6 Gujarat Cricket Association v. JCIT (E) (101 taxmann.com 453) 7 Surat Urban Development Authority v. DCIT (E)(182 ITD 20) 8 Jhansi Development Authority v. DCIT, C-4 (123…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…will be immaterial." 7. The Appellant also relies on the following other decisions of the High Courts and the Tribunals to support the proposition of the Appellant. 1 Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust Vs Asst DIT(E) (362 ITR 539) (Guj HC) 2 GS1 India v. DGIT(E)(360 ITR 138)(Del HC) 3 Moradabad Development Authority v. ACIT (E)(168 ITD 564 4 Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) 5 Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust v. ITO (155 ITD 570) 6 Gujarat Cricket Association v. JCIT (E) (101 taxmann.com 453) 7 Surat Urban Development Authority v. DCIT (E)(182 ITD 20) 8 Jhansi Development Authority v. DCIT, C-4 (123…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…will be immaterial." 7. The Appellant also relies on the following other decisions of the High Courts and the Tribunals to support the proposition of the Appellant. 1 Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust Vs Asst DIT(E) (362 ITR 539) (Guj HC) 2 GS1 India v. DGIT(E)(360 ITR 138)(Del HC) 3 Moradabad Development Authority v. ACIT (E)(168 ITD 564 4 Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) 5 Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust v. ITO (155 ITD 570) 6 Gujarat Cricket Association v. JCIT (E) (101 taxmann.com 453) 7 Surat Urban Development Authority v. DCIT (E)(182 ITD 20) 8 Jhansi Development Authority v. DCIT, C-4 (123…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…will be immaterial." 7. The Appellant also relies on the following other decisions of the High Courts and the Tribunals to support the proposition of the Appellant. 1 Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust Vs Asst DIT(E) (362 ITR 539) (Guj HC) 2 GS1 India v. DGIT(E)(360 ITR 138)(Del HC) 3 Moradabad Development Authority v. ACIT (E)(168 ITD 564 4 Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) 5 Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust v. ITO (155 ITD 570) 6 Gujarat Cricket Association v. JCIT (E) (101 taxmann.com 453) 7 Surat Urban Development Authority v. DCIT (E)(182 ITD 20) 8 Jhansi Development Authority v. DCIT, C-4 (123…

Mumbai Metroplitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…will be immaterial." 7. The Appellant also relies on the following other decisions of the High Courts and the Tribunals to support the proposition of the Appellant. 1 Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust Vs Asst DIT(E) (362 ITR 539) (Guj HC) 2 GS1 India v. DGIT(E)(360 ITR 138)(Del HC) 3 Moradabad Development Authority v. ACIT (E)(168 ITD 564 4 Bangalore Development Authority v. ACIT (176 ITD 833) 5 Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust v. ITO (155 ITD 570) 6 Gujarat Cricket Association v. JCIT (E) (101 taxmann.com 453) 7 Surat Urban Development Authority v. DCIT (E)(182 ITD 20) 8 Jhansi Development Authority v. DCIT, C-4 (123…

ACIT(E), Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs. Professional Assistance for Development Action, New Delhi

ITA 3313/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…re receipt of fees or receipts does not mean that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business to attract the mischief of the proviso to section 2(15) and the assessee also relied on the various case laws being- GS1 India vs. DGIT (Exemption), 360 ITR 138 (Delhi) (2014). i) Bureau of India Standards vs. DGIT (E), 358 ITR 78 (Delhi) (2013). ii) iii) Director of Income Tax (E) vs. ICAI, 347 ITR 86 (Delhi)(2012). iv) ICAI vs. DGIT(E) 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) (2012). 4.1.3 As per the contention of the appellant its activities fall under the category of relief of poor and, in support, the appellant has reli…

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

…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/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 27 (5) The non admission of SLP by the honourable Supreme Court in case of Jammu Development Authority is not binding on lower courts as has been held by the honourable Supreme Court i…

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) &

…has produced a number of excellent cricketers of international repute and this was achieved by nurturing talent irrespective of cast, creed, status, religion etc. Further, the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in the case of M/s GSI India vs. DIT, Delhi reported in 360 ITR 138 elaborately differentiate the business, trade activity from charitable activity under the residuary category i.e. "advancement of any other object of general public utility". Apart from this, the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Delhi and District Cricket Association vs. CIT(E), ITA No.3095/Del/2012 held as under:- " 10.9. Thus respectfully f…

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)

…he assessee is to be looked from different perspective for the reason that its main objective are incidental to education and that too without any profit motive. 20. Ld AR has relied up on the decision of Hon Delhi high court in case of GS1 V DGIT (exemption) 360 ITR 138 (Delhi) (2014) wherein, though the issue pertained to AY 2008- 09, the Hon high court also discussed the provisions w.e.f. 1-4-2009. Hon High court also considered the decision rendered in 347 ITR 99, which is relied up on by revenue. The Hon high court held that “Statutory provisions 12. In the present case, the period in question is both prior…

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) &

…has produced a number of excellent cricketers of international repute and this was achieved by nurturing talent irrespective of cast, creed, status, religion etc. Further, the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in the case of M/s GSI India vs. DIT, Delhi reported in 360 ITR 138 elaborately differentiate the business, trade activity from charitable activity under the residuary category i.e. "advancement of any other object of general public utility". Apart from this, the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Delhi and District Cricket Association vs. CIT(E), ITA No.3095/Del/2012 held as under:- " 10.9. Thus respectfully f…

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) &

…has produced a number of excellent cricketers of international repute and this was achieved by nurturing talent irrespective of cast, creed, status, religion etc. Further, the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in the case of M/s GSI India vs. DIT, Delhi reported in 360 ITR 138 elaborately differentiate the business, trade activity from charitable activity under the residuary category i.e. "advancement of any other object of general public utility". Apart from this, the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Delhi and District Cricket Association vs. CIT(E), ITA No.3095/Del/2012 held as under:- " 10.9. Thus respectfully f…

ITO (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 2447/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer Matunga Gymkhana, (Exemptions)-2(1), 263/A Lakhamsey Napoo Road, 512, 5Th Floor, Matunga, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai - 400019 Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aaatm1035F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2019

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143Section 2(15)

…the Act it would be denied the benefit on the grounds that the entity has not complied with section 11 (5) of the Act. 14. Several decisions have considered and interpreted the scope, purpose and limits of the proviso to Section 2(15). In GS 1 India Vs. DGIT 360 ITR 138 (Del), the term trade, commerce or business was interpreted, and in that case even though the assessee was charging a fee having regard to the economic status of the beneficiaries, it was held that it was necessary for the operation and running expenses and the sustenance of charitable activities, that a fee could be charged. In the case of the a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (E), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Tool and Gauge Manufacturers Association of India, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2864/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Swapna Das, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Kavitha .P, CA
Section 2(15)

…idered opinion, under these facts, this Tribunal order is also not applicable in the facts of present case. 15. The next decision cited before us is the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of GS1 India Vs. DGIT (E) as reported in [2014] 360 ITR 138(Delhi). In this case, the dispute was regarding assessee’s eligibility for registration u/s. 10(23C)(iv) and not regarding exemption u/s. 11 of IT Act and hence, in our considered opinion, this judgment is not applicable in the facts of present case. 16. Moreover, Para nos. 20 to 27 of this judgement are relevant and the same are reproduced herei…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4326/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4326/Mum/2017, 4327/Mum/2017, 4329/Mum/2017, 4331/Mum/2017, 4332/Mum/2017, 4475/Mum/2017 & 4476/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11,2012–13,2013–14 &, 2014–15) Maharashtra Industrial Development Assistant Commissioner Of Income Corporation Tax (Exemptions) 2(1) Udyog Sarathi, Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Mahakali Caves Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri V. Sridharan & S. Sriram प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit–Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (CIT–DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “डी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4326/Mum/2017, 4327/Mum/2017, 4329/Mum/2017, 4331/Mum/2017, 4332/Mum/2017, 4475/Mum/2017 & 4476/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11,2012–13,2013–14 &, 2014–15) Maharashtra Industrial Development Assistant Commissioner of Income Corporation Tax (Exemptions) 2(1) Udyog Sarathi, Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Mahakali Caves Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./…

The Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6706/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 2(75)

…the Act it would be denied the benefit on the grounds that the entity has not complied with section 11 (5) of the Act. 14. Several decisions have considered and interpreted the scope, purpose and limits of the proviso to Section 2(15). In GS 1 India Vs. DGIT 360 ITR 138 (Del), the term trade, commerce or business was interpreted, and in that case even though the assessee was charging a fee having regard to the economic status of the beneficiaries, it was held that it was necessary for the operation and running expenses and the sustenance of charitable activities, that a fee could be charged. In the case of the a…

Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemptions) vs. M/S.Gs1 India

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/691/2017HC Delhi16 Feb 2018

Bench: This Court Challenges An Order Of The Itat. It Is Urged That The Sum Of Rs. 9 Crores Received By The Assessee Taken For Bar Code Licensing Fee Is Essentially A Commercial Receipt & Therefore Liable To Be Treated As Such For The Relevant Assessment Year. Concededly, The Assessee Is A Charitable Society & Has Got The Protection Of Section 2 (15) Read With Section 10 (23)(C) Of The Income Tax Act. This Court Notices That The Bar Code Licensing Activity Carried On

Section 10Section 2Section 2(15)

…aving regard to these facts and the conclusions of the lower appellate authorities, no question of law arises. The appeal is therefore dismissed. “ This Court by its judgment in GSI India Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) and Anr., (2014) 360 ITR 138 granted exemption under Section 2(15) read with Section 10(23C)(iv), observing as, follows :- 24.“The petitioner does not cater to the lowest or marginalized section of the society, but Government, public sector and private sector manufacturers and traders. No fee is charged from users and beneficiaries like stockist, whole sellers, gove…

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)

…rovement Trust Vs. ITO, ITA No. 987/Chd/2014 XIII. The Patiala Trust Vs. ITO ITA No. 305/Chd/2013 XIV. Chandigarh Golf Club Vs. CIT 156 ITD 264 10. Amongst the above decisions he vehemently relied on the decision of GS1 India Vs. DIT (Exemption) 262 CTR 585 [360 ITR 138] and he submitted that facts of that particular case is identical to the facts of the case of the assessee. He further referred to para No. 12 of the decision, wherein that decision considered both issues prior to the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and subsequent thereto. He further referred to para NO. 16 to show what the trade or commerce could be…

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)

…rovement Trust Vs. ITO, ITA No. 987/Chd/2014 XIII. The Patiala Trust Vs. ITO ITA No. 305/Chd/2013 XIV. Chandigarh Golf Club Vs. CIT 156 ITD 264 10. Amongst the above decisions he vehemently relied on the decision of GS1 India Vs. DIT (Exemption) 262 CTR 585 [360 ITR 138] and he submitted that facts of that particular case is identical to the facts of the case of the assessee. He further referred to para No. 12 of the decision, wherein that decision considered both issues prior to the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and subsequent thereto. He further referred to para NO. 16 to show what the trade or commerce could be…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Consultancy Development Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 92/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 92/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer (E), Vs Consultancy Development Centre, Ward-1(3), Iind Floor, Zone-Iv B, India New Delhi-110002 Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatc4020A Assessee By : Sh. R. R. Maurya, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sampoornanand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 06.10.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. R. Maurya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sampoornanand, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…not controvert the fact that the issue is not covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Bureau of Indian Standards reported at 358 ITR 78 as well as the circular of the CBDT No. 11/2008. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in GS1 India Vs. DGIT 360 ITR 138 has also explained the fact of amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2009 wherein it has been held that the amended provisions applies only in the case where the activities of the assessee falls in the category of "objects of general public utility". In the present case the assessee is carrying on education and training programme for the purposes of for consult…