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 366,470 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)

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)

…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…

Jamait Ulama Halal Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4738/MUM/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Om Prakash Kanti.T.A. No.4738/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jamait Ulama Halal Foundation….….……..….…..………………….……Appellant Opp. Bit Chawl No.01, Imam Wada Compound, Imam Wada Road, Mumbai-400009. [Pan: Aabtj5351Q] Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Mumbai………………….…………...……………..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri V. K. Chaturvedi Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 12, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg:

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ssessee under the conditions stipulated under section 11(4A) or the seventh proviso to section 10(23C) otherwise also do not comes to its rescue. i) The facts of the case relied upon by the assessee [Indian Trade Promotion Organization Vs. DIT(E), reported in 371 ITR 333(Del.)] is distinguishable on the facts of this case. However, in the referred case the point of examination of business activity 1s given as "dominant activity" of the institution. The dominant activity of the trust in this case is issue of Halal certificate and it is not incidental or ancillary activity of the assessee trust. j) Even out of dona…

ACIT (Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. The Surat District Cricket Association, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 165/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Asst. Commissioner Of The Surat District Cricket Income-Tax (Exemptions), Association, Lalbhai Vs Circle-2, 6Th Floor, Room Contractor Stadium, Surat No.607, Aayakar Bhavan Dumas Road, Vesu, (Vejalpur), Prahlad Nagar Surat-395007 Road, Nr. Sachin Tower, Pan : Aaatt 6114 A Satellite,Ahmedabad-380 015 Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)Section 254(1)

…rce or business or any activities of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration (emphasis added by us). 15. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indian Trade promotion Organization (ITPO) Vs DGIT (371 ITR 333 Delhi) also held that the expression 'charitable purpose', as defined in section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms and it has to take colour and be considered in context of section 10(23C)(iv), thus, if dominant and prime objective of institution, was not desire to earn profits but, object of promoting trade and commerce n…

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5701/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akkhade
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…DA, despite the Fact that the assessee therein having no obligation to provide housing for the weaker sections it was held that Section II exemption was allowable; hence MHADA's case stood on a far better footing. (g) On the judgment of India Trade Promotion (371 ITR 333], Ld. Special Counsel sought to distinguish the decision on the ground that the matter was being considered by the Hon'ble High Court in its Writ Jurisdiction and further that it was rendered in the context of a S.25 of Companies Act and was, concerned with exemption u/s 10[23C) of the IT Act. He further pointed out that the decision of the Hon’b…

The Indian Cultural Research Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3020/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/s. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAATT0483…

The Indian Cultural Research Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3019/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/s. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAATT0483…

The Indian Cultural Research Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3018/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/s. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAATT0483…

ITO, Chennai vs. M/S. Indian Cultural Research Trust, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 2978/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/s. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAATT0483…

ITO, Chennai vs. M/S. Indian Cultural Research Trust, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 2977/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/s. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAATT0483…

ITO, Chennai vs. M/S. Indian Cultural Research Trust, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 2976/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/s. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAATT0483…

ITO, Chennai vs. The Indian Cultural Research Trust, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 586/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/s. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AAATT0483…

Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1174/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 1Section 11Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos. 1174 & 1175/Mum/2015 and 5834 & 5835/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15) Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Income-tax Officer (Exemptions)- Industry 1(1), 5th Floor, Room No. 505, Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, Vs. 4, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 PAN/GIR No. AABCB 2270 M (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Niraj Sheth Shri Ketan Ved : Shri Suresh Periasamy Respondent by Date…

M/S Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-17(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Annamalai S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(6)Section 2(15)

…nization has to be examined before coming to a conclusion regarding application of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This aspect has been highlighted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333)(Del). The facts of the case before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization (supra) were that the Assessee in that case enjoyed the benefit of exemption u/s.10(23C)(iv) of the Act. Sec.10(23C)(iv) provides any income received by any person on behalf of any other fund or institution established for charitable…

ITO(Expeption) Ward-1(1), New Delhi vs. All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1648/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11(3)Section 2(15)Section 251(2)

…ITA No. 1449/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in allowing relief to the Assessee, following the decision of this Court in India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. DGIT(E)(2015) 371 ITR 333 (Del) and holding that merely because a small percentage of the income of the Assessee is from letting out of its premises and sale of paintings, the essential activity of the Assessee would not cease to be charitable for the purposes of Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the Revenue, and having examin…

ITO (Exception) Ward-1(1), New Delhi vs. All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1647/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11(3)Section 2(15)Section 251(2)

…ITA No. 1449/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in allowing relief to the Assessee, following the decision of this Court in India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. DGIT(E)(2015) 371 ITR 333 (Del) and holding that merely because a small percentage of the income of the Assessee is from letting out of its premises and sale of paintings, the essential activity of the Assessee would not cease to be charitable for the purposes of Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the Revenue, and having examin…

All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, New Delhi vs. It((Expeption) Ward-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1631/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11(3)Section 2(15)Section 251(2)

…ITA No. 1449/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in allowing relief to the Assessee, following the decision of this Court in India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. DGIT(E)(2015) 371 ITR 333 (Del) and holding that merely because a small percentage of the income of the Assessee is from letting out of its premises and sale of paintings, the essential activity of the Assessee would not cease to be charitable for the purposes of Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the Revenue, and having examin…

All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), Ward-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1630/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11(3)Section 2(15)Section 251(2)

…ITA No. 1449/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in allowing relief to the Assessee, following the decision of this Court in India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. DGIT(E)(2015) 371 ITR 333 (Del) and holding that merely because a small percentage of the income of the Assessee is from letting out of its premises and sale of paintings, the essential activity of the Assessee would not cease to be charitable for the purposes of Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the Revenue, and having examin…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 448/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…peal before us whereas the assessee, in the cross-objections, has assailed various computations made by Ld. AO. CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 6. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (Exemption) & Ors. (371 ITR 333), (WP No. 1872 of 2013 dated 22/01/2015) has held that in both the activities i.e. (i) activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii) any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, dominant and prime objective is to be seen. If the dominant objective was ‘profit motive’, the trust would not be…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 447/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…peal before us whereas the assessee, in the cross-objections, has assailed various computations made by Ld. AO. CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 6. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (Exemption) & Ors. (371 ITR 333), (WP No. 1872 of 2013 dated 22/01/2015) has held that in both the activities i.e. (i) activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii) any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, dominant and prime objective is to be seen. If the dominant objective was ‘profit motive’, the trust would not be…

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 3, Chennai vs. M/S Chennai Auto Ancilliary Industrtial Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Chennai

ITA 446/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.447/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.448/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer (E) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Industrial Ward-3, Infrastructure Upgradation Company बनाम/ Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 79/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.446/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & Cross Objection No. 80/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.447/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & Cross Objection No. 81/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.448/Chny/2018) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chennai Auto Ancillary Income Tax Officer (E) Industrial Infrastructure Ward-3, बनाम/ Upgradation Company Chennai – 34. Sidco Administrative Office, Vs. 2Nd Main Road, Ambattur Ind. Estate, Chennai – 600 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-7059-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Co Nos. 79 To 81/Chny/2018

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane - CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…peal before us whereas the assessee, in the cross-objections, has assailed various computations made by Ld. AO. CO Nos. 79 to 81/CHNY/2018 6. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (Exemption) & Ors. (371 ITR 333), (WP No. 1872 of 2013 dated 22/01/2015) has held that in both the activities i.e. (i) activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii) any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, dominant and prime objective is to be seen. If the dominant objective was ‘profit motive’, the trust would not be…