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)

Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exe)-1 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5832/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5832/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Bombay Chamber Of Commerce & The Income-Tax Officer Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, 4, (Exemptions)-1(1), फनाभ/ Room No. 508, 5 Th Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcb2270M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi & Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Drs’ ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi &
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

…ny activity for profit" in the definition of "charitable purpose" contained in section 2(15) of the Act. 15. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization V. DGIT(E) (371 ITR 333) (Del) and argued that the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act on the ground that it was arbitrary, unreasonable and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India dealing with "equality before law". Hon’ble Delhi High Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the…

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

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 943/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…evt.Board Vs. DIT€ ITA No.661/Bang/2014 order dated 20.4.2016. (ii) Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Addl.CIT ITA No.1104/Bang/2017 order dated 22.3.2019. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities…

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

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 941/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…evt.Board Vs. DIT€ ITA No.661/Bang/2014 order dated 20.4.2016. (ii) Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Addl.CIT ITA No.1104/Bang/2017 order dated 22.3.2019. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 727/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…evt.Board Vs. DIT€ ITA No.661/Bang/2014 order dated 20.4.2016. (ii) Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Addl.CIT ITA No.1104/Bang/2017 order dated 22.3.2019. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle, Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka State Road Transport Coporation, Bangalore

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 726/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…evt.Board Vs. DIT€ ITA No.661/Bang/2014 order dated 20.4.2016. (ii) Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Addl.CIT ITA No.1104/Bang/2017 order dated 22.3.2019. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities…

M/S Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore vs. The Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-17, Bangalore

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 721/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…evt.Board Vs. DIT€ ITA No.661/Bang/2014 order dated 20.4.2016. (ii) Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Addl.CIT ITA No.1104/Bang/2017 order dated 22.3.2019. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities…

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

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 720/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…evt.Board Vs. DIT€ ITA No.661/Bang/2014 order dated 20.4.2016. (ii) Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Addl.CIT ITA No.1104/Bang/2017 order dated 22.3.2019. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities…

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

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1068/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…evt.Board Vs. DIT€ ITA No.661/Bang/2014 order dated 20.4.2016. (ii) Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Addl.CIT ITA No.1104/Bang/2017 order dated 22.3.2019. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities…

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

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1066/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…evt.Board Vs. DIT€ ITA No.661/Bang/2014 order dated 20.4.2016. (ii) Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Addl.CIT ITA No.1104/Bang/2017 order dated 22.3.2019. (iii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities…

ACIT(E), Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. National Accredition Board for Testing and Calibration, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 6289/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…89/Del./2017 be improved. It has not been alleged by AO or CIT (A) anywhere that the assessee is charging exorbitant or excessive fees. We find that in view of the decision of Honourable jurisdictional high court in India Trade promotion Organizations' V DGIT 371 ITR 333 the correct interpretation of the proviso to section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade,…

ACIT(E), Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. National Accredition Board for Testing and Calibration, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 6288/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…89/Del./2017 be improved. It has not been alleged by AO or CIT (A) anywhere that the assessee is charging exorbitant or excessive fees. We find that in view of the decision of Honourable jurisdictional high court in India Trade promotion Organizations' V DGIT 371 ITR 333 the correct interpretation of the proviso to section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade,…

ACIT(E), Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs. Quality Council of India, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1659/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1659/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Acit(E), Quality Council Of India 2Nd Floor, Institution Of Circle 2(1) Vs. New Delhi. Engineering Building, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaatq0055D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 11Section 2(15)

…and allowed exemption in AY 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and further held that in ITAT in ITA No. 867/2016 in appellant’s own case it was ruled out that on the basis of Court’s judgment in India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (2015) 374 ITR 333 and in the case of Institution of the Chartered Accountants Vs. DGIT(Exemption) 2013 (358 ITR 91) (Del.) that mere circumstances of collection of such amounts did not results in the assessee losing their essential character of being established for charitable purpose and held that since the case if similar to those for the earlier assessment…

Southern Gujarat Chamber Trade & Industry Development Centre, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 910/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah & Ms ChaitaliFor Respondent: Mr. O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 234BSection 254(1)

…ITA No. 910/AHD/2016 Assessment Year.2011-12 Southern Gujarat Chamber Trade & Industry Development Centre INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 910/AHD/2016 for Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Virtual Court Hearing) Southern Gujarat Chamber The Income Tax Officer, Trade & Industry Vs. Exemption-Ward, Development Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil “Samruddhi”, Near Makkai Hospital Majuragate Surat. Bridge Nanpura, Surat-395001. PAN No. AAICS 8963 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rasesh Shah & Ms Chaital…

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

…motive would be a vital indicator in determining whether an organisation is carrying on business or not. The Hon'ble High Court also referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT (Exemptions) [2015] 371 ITR 333/229 Taxman 347/53 taxmann.com 404 wherein it was held as under:— "An activity would be considered 'business' if it is undertaken with a profit motive, but in some cases, this may not be determinative. Normally, the profit motive test should be satisfied, but in a given case activity may be regarded as a business even when profit motive cannot be…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1618/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 18Section 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 theAssessee 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1617/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 18Section 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 theAssessee 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1616/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 18Section 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 theAssessee 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1615/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 18Section 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 theAssessee 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…

M/S Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1603/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 18Section 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 theAssessee 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…

M/S Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1602/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 18Section 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 theAssessee 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…