Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (i) CIT v. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (Scope) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 11(1)(d), Section 11(5), Section 12A, Section 13(1)(c)(ii), Section 13(3).

(i) CIT v. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (Scope) (319 ITR 179)

Q: What is (i) CIT v. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (Scope) authority for?

Income from sources such as fixed deposit interest, dividend income, and profits from the sale of investments are not taxable when they arise from a relationship of mutuality.

Q: How many judgments cite (i) CIT v. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (Scope)?

16 judgments on BharatTax cite (i) CIT v. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (Scope) (319 ITR 179), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic Council, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina

Section 11Section 2(15)

…port the same, the Appellant has placed reliance cannot be taxed. In support the same, the Appellant has placed reliance on various case laws: various case laws: d. CIT vs Delhi Gymkhana CIT vs Delhi Gymkhana e. CIT vs Standing Conference of public Enterprise 319 ITR 179 (Del) CIT vs Standing Conference of public Enterprise 319 ITR 179 (Del) CIT vs Standing Conference of public Enterprise 319 ITR 179 (Del) All India Gem And Jewellery Domestic Council All India Gem And Jewellery Domestic Council 6 f. Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund vs DCIT 308 ITR Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund vs DCI…

M/S at & T Global Betwork Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4882/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2008-09] At &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. At &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3Rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon Pan: Aafca 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Ca Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153Section 234B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-2’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2008-09] AT &T Global Network Services [India] Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle Circle - 2 (1) 3rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon PAN: AAFCA 8810 L [A.Y 2008-09] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. AT &T Global Network Services Circle 2(1) [India] Pvt Ltd, Vatika Triangle 3rd Floor, Sushant Lok - I New Delhi Block A, Gurgaon PAN: AAFCA 8810 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Adv Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CA Department…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Panchkula Golf Club, Panchkula

In the result, both the above appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 461/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue By : Sh. N.D. GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. N.D. Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…urt, i) Delhi HC- All India Oriental Bank of commerce Welfare Society [2003] 130 Taxman 5765 (Del.) ii) Karnataka HC - Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund [2009] 308 ITR 202 (Karri). iii) Delhi HC- Standing Conference of Public Enterprises [2009] 319 ITR 179 (Del.) 6. The Ld. AR argued that this is not the case of deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of the Act as the assessee had disclosed details of interest income of Rs. 30,31,222/- and Rs. 42,40,760/- itself in the original return filed prior to receipt of notice u/s 148, which are material for the computa…

ACIT, Circle, Panchkula vs. M/S Panchkula Golf Club, Panchkula

In the result, both the above appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 462/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue By : Sh. N.D. GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. N.D. Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…urt, i) Delhi HC- All India Oriental Bank of commerce Welfare Society [2003] 130 Taxman 5765 (Del.) ii) Karnataka HC - Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund [2009] 308 ITR 202 (Karri). iii) Delhi HC- Standing Conference of Public Enterprises [2009] 319 ITR 179 (Del.) 6. The Ld. AR argued that this is not the case of deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of the Act as the assessee had disclosed details of interest income of Rs. 30,31,222/- and Rs. 42,40,760/- itself in the original return filed prior to receipt of notice u/s 148, which are material for the computa…

Kalaimaghal Sabha, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1404/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT

…Ltd. (339 ITR 525, Delhi). b) DIT vs All India Oriental Bank of Commerce Welfare Society (130 Taxman 575, Delhi). c) CIT vs Talangang Co- operation Group Housing Society Ltd. (339 ITR 518, Delhi). d) CIT vs Standing Conferences of Public Enterprises (Scope) (319 ITR 179, Delhi). e) Chelmsferd Club vs CIT (243 ITR 89-SC). It has been held by Karnataka High Court that a society is eligible for exemption even in respect of interest income from Term Deposits with Banks and dividend income from shares.(Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund Vs Deputy CIT (308 ITR 202). It has also been held by Delhi High Cou…

Kalaimaghal Sabha, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1403/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT

…Ltd. (339 ITR 525, Delhi). b) DIT vs All India Oriental Bank of Commerce Welfare Society (130 Taxman 575, Delhi). c) CIT vs Talangang Co- operation Group Housing Society Ltd. (339 ITR 518, Delhi). d) CIT vs Standing Conferences of Public Enterprises (Scope) (319 ITR 179, Delhi). e) Chelmsferd Club vs CIT (243 ITR 89-SC). It has been held by Karnataka High Court that a society is eligible for exemption even in respect of interest income from Term Deposits with Banks and dividend income from shares.(Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund Vs Deputy CIT (308 ITR 202). It has also been held by Delhi High Cou…

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Kpmg, Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2493/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Jason. P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singhdcit -3 (1), M/S Kpmg Room No. 136, 1St Floor, C/O Kpmg House, Scindia House, N.M. Road, Kamala Mills Compound, 448, Vs. Ballard Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400038 Parel Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaafk1415H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…] ITA No.2493/M/2012 & C.O. 97/M/2013 M/s KPMG 226 ITR 97; Chelmsford Club versus CIT [2009] 243 ITR 89; Bangalore Club versus CIT [2013] 350 ITR 509 and the decision of Delhi High Court in CIT versus Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE) [2009]319 ITR 179 (Delhi). The ld. Counsel further submitted that the AO relied on the case of DCIT Vs Arthur Andersen &Co (ITA No.9125/M/1995) wherein the Tribunal held that tax was required to be deducted at source. It was vehemently argued that the facts of the case in Arthur Andersen & Co is not based on mutuality and the fact of his case are totally different…