India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)

371 ITR 333High Court2015#806 most cited

What is India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption) authority for?

An institution engaged in the advancement of general public utility retains its charitable character and eligibility for exemptions under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) provided profit is not its predominant motive, even if it generates incidental surpluses or collects fees.

128

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption) · Section 2(15) · Section 11 exemption · Section 10(23C)(iv) approval · advancement of general public utility · charitable purpose · predominant profit motive · incidental income · collection of fees · proviso to section 2(15)

Sections most often in play

Section 2(15)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80GSection 13(8)Section 250Section 12AB

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 10(23c)(iv)section 205advancement of general public utilitysection 36(1)(v)proviso to section 2(15)section 52section 2(15)section 10(23c)mliput to useapplication of income

Judgments citing India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

…pted in coming to the conclusion as to whether the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act will be applicable to the Assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. DGIT(Exemption) and others 371 ITR 333 (Delhi). The learned counsel for the Assessee has placed strong reliance on this decision to support his plea that the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act is not applicable to Assessee. The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization (supra) was that the Assessee in that case enjoyed the ben…

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

…pted in coming to the conclusion as to whether the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act will be applicable to the Assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. DGIT(Exemption) and others 371 ITR 333 (Delhi). The learned counsel for the Assessee has placed strong reliance on this decision to support his plea that the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act is not applicable to Assessee. The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization (supra) was that the Assessee in that case enjoyed the ben…

PRINTECH PARK CLUSTER BANGALORE,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1065/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri Kupendra Setty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR
Section 12A

…. Andhra Chamber of Commerce reported in (1965) 55 ITR 722. The Tribunal further relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. Director General of Income-tax (Exptns.) & Others reported in (2015) 371 ITR 333 in which it was explained that if an institution is not driven primarily by a desire or motive to earn profits, but to do the charity through the advancement of general public utility, it can be regarded as an institution established for the charitable purposes. Therefore on an earlier occasion, this Hon’ble Tribunal had considered the facts and…

M/S. TAMIL NADU TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion C.I.T. (Exemptions), Organization, Vs. Chennai. 6-A/B/C, Mount Poonamallee Road, Nandambakkam-600089 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aabct 6725 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 2(15)Section 25Section 8

…y the judgment passed by their predecessor Division Bench in WP(C) No. 1872/2013, holding as follows: “4. It is pertinent to mention that in a writ petition being India Trade Promotion Organization v DGIT (Exemptions) [2015] 53 taxmarin.com 404/229 Taxman 347/371 ITR 333 (Delhi) in WP(C) 1872/2013 the learned predecessor Division Bench issued a Mandamus to the appellant herein to grant approval to the respondent herein under section 10(23C) (iv) of the 5 ITA1438/Chny/2025 M/s Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion Organization Vs CIT(E) Act. The relevant portion of the said judgment passed by the learned predecessor Divisio…

AADYA FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2677/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 11Section 12A

…income is being generated, that will not dis entitle the trust t claim exemption u/s 11 read with section 2(15) of the Act. 7. India Trade Promotion Hon’ble Delhi The Hon’ble High Court reading Organization vs. DIT(E) High Court down the scope of the proviso 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) to section 2(15) has held that an assessee could be said to be engaged in business, trade or commerce only where earning of profit was the predominant motive, purpose and object of the assessee and that mere surplus from incidental or ancillary activities did not disentitle claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 8. Samajbadi Society vs. Ho…

AADYA FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT(E), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2676/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 11Section 12A

…income is being generated, that will not dis entitle the trust t claim exemption u/s 11 read with section 2(15) of the Act. 7. India Trade Promotion Hon’ble Delhi The Hon’ble High Court reading Organization vs. DIT(E) High Court down the scope of the proviso 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) to section 2(15) has held that an assessee could be said to be engaged in business, trade or commerce only where earning of profit was the predominant motive, purpose and object of the assessee and that mere surplus from incidental or ancillary activities did not disentitle claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 8. Samajbadi Society vs. Ho…

POWER LOOM DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEM) WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1060/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 11Section 12Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 25

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1060/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Powerloom Development Vs. Income Tax Officer, And Export Promotion (Exemption) Council MTNL Telephone Ex. No. GC-2, Gundecha Building, Cumballa Onclave, Ground Floor, Hills, Peddar Road, Kherani Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai 400026. Andheri (East), Mumbai 400072. PAN: AAATP0271E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri. S.L. Jain a/w Shri. Satish Jain Respondent by Shri. Mukesh Thakwani, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 24.03.2…

PETROLEUM FEDERATION OF INDIA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 645/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 263

…noticing several decisions including that of this Court in DIT vs. India Habitat Centre: (2011) 203 Taxman 510. The ITAT’s decision has relied on several judgments of this Court including India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. Director General of Income Tax: 371 ITR 333; PHD Chambers of Commerce & Industry vs. DIT: 357 ITR 296, etc. 3. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact and ruling in Indian Trade Promotion Organisation vs. Director General of Income Tax: 371 ITR 333, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity or error of law in the impugned order calling for interference. No substantia…

PETROLEUM FEDERATION OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. CIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3967/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 263

…noticing several decisions including that of this Court in DIT vs. India Habitat Centre: (2011) 203 Taxman 510. The ITAT’s decision has relied on several judgments of this Court including India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. Director General of Income Tax: 371 ITR 333; PHD Chambers of Commerce & Industry vs. DIT: 357 ITR 296, etc. 3. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact and ruling in Indian Trade Promotion Organisation vs. Director General of Income Tax: 371 ITR 333, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity or error of law in the impugned order calling for interference. No substantia…

SHRI BABA BALAKNATH SEVA SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Appeals are disposed of

ITA 552/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2024

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.) ( through V.C.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

…aritable purposes”. Learned AR for the appellant has pointed out that in the MOA/deed, it has been specifically mentioned that the activities or objects of the trust specified therein would not be to earn profit. In India Trade Promotion Organisation v. DGIT, 371 ITR 333, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while upholding the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act held that same would apply where the dominant intention of a trust or the institution is profit making. Here, nothing has been brought to our notice from the side of the department to suggest that any of the objects of the trust was…

SHRI BABA BALAKNATH SEVA SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION , JAIPUR

Appeals are disposed of

ITA 551/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2024

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.) ( through V.C.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

…aritable purposes”. Learned AR for the appellant has pointed out that in the MOA/deed, it has been specifically mentioned that the activities or objects of the trust specified therein would not be to earn profit. In India Trade Promotion Organisation v. DGIT, 371 ITR 333, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while upholding the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act held that same would apply where the dominant intention of a trust or the institution is profit making. Here, nothing has been brought to our notice from the side of the department to suggest that any of the objects of the trust was…

POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 44ASection 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Population Services Vs. CIT (E), International, New Delhi C-445, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi PAN :AAATP1217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate Respondent by Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 21.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 30.11.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by learned C…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…onducted regularly on business principles, (e) predominantly concerned with making taxable supplies for consideration, (f) such as those commonly made by persons seeking to make profit. Other judgments too 73 298 ITR (St.) 74 Quoted in ITPO v. DGIT(E) : 371 ITR 333 (Del) (hereafter “ITPO”) 75 308 ITR (St.) 76 1967 (3) SCR 778 77 1981 (3) SCR 387 78 1967 (1) SCR 618 79 (1981) 2 All ER 147 43 were cited; and reference was made to definitions in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary, and Sampath Iyengar’s Law of Income Tax. 68. Mr. Ajay…

THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 36

…GIT (Exemption) 347 ITR 99. (2) Bureau of Indian Standards Vs DGIT 358 ITR 78 (3) DIT Vs. Womans India Trust 379 ITR 506 (4) CIT (Ex) Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association (2017) 164 ITD 212 (JP. Trib) (5)Indian Trade Promotion Organization Vs DGIT (Exemp) (2015) 371 ITR 333 (V) (Delhi) (6) Praxis Institute of Participatory Practices Vs. DIT 2015) 154 ITD 10 (Delhi) (7) Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. ITO (2015) 155 ITD 570 (Asr) (8) GVK EMRI (UP) Vs. DIT Exempt (2014) 63 SOT 195 (9)IT.O. V. Society of Essential Health Action and training (2014) 63 SOT 133 In view of the above submissions the Jewellers Association f…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

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

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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)

…ss. In the instant case, as already demonstrated, the objects of the Assessee are not in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 4.27 In this regard, he relied on the following decisions: Θ In India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (Exemptions) [2015] 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) it was held as follows: 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in socially and economically desirable activities relating to the promotion of Indian trade and that the activities of the petitioner fell within the ambit of the expression "the advancement of any other object of general public utility" as appearing in Section…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

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

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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)

…ss. In the instant case, as already demonstrated, the objects of the Assessee are not in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 4.27 In this regard, he relied on the following decisions: Θ In India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (Exemptions) [2015] 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) it was held as follows: 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in socially and economically desirable activities relating to the promotion of Indian trade and that the activities of the petitioner fell within the ambit of the expression "the advancement of any other object of general public utility" as appearing in Section…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

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

ITA 2089/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)

…ss. In the instant case, as already demonstrated, the objects of the Assessee are not in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 4.27 In this regard, he relied on the following decisions: Θ In India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (Exemptions) [2015] 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) it was held as follows: 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in socially and economically desirable activities relating to the promotion of Indian trade and that the activities of the petitioner fell within the ambit of the expression "the advancement of any other object of general public utility" as appearing in Section…

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 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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)

…ss. In the instant case, as already demonstrated, the objects of the Assessee are not in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 4.27 In this regard, he relied on the following decisions: Θ In India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (Exemptions) [2015] 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) it was held as follows: 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in socially and economically desirable activities relating to the promotion of Indian trade and that the activities of the petitioner fell within the ambit of the expression "the advancement of any other object of general public utility" as appearing in Section…

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 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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)

…ss. In the instant case, as already demonstrated, the objects of the Assessee are not in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 4.27 In this regard, he relied on the following decisions: Θ In India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (Exemptions) [2015] 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) it was held as follows: 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in socially and economically desirable activities relating to the promotion of Indian trade and that the activities of the petitioner fell within the ambit of the expression "the advancement of any other object of general public utility" as appearing in Section…

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)

…ss. In the instant case, as already demonstrated, the objects of the Assessee are not in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 4.27 In this regard, he relied on the following decisions: Θ In India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (Exemptions) [2015] 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) it was held as follows: 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was engaged in socially and economically desirable activities relating to the promotion of Indian trade and that the activities of the petitioner fell within the ambit of the expression "the advancement of any other object of general public utility" as appearing in Section…

Showing 1–20 of 128 · Page 1 of 7

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333) — Cited in 128 Judgments | BharatTax