Which sections of the Income Tax Act does India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(15), Section 11, Section 12A, Section 143(3), Section 80G, Section 13(8).

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)

Q: How many judgments cite India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)?

128 judgments on BharatTax cite India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333), spanning 2015 to 2026.

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 11 Section 12A Section 143(3)Section 80G Section 13(8)Section 250 Section 12AB

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 10(23c)(iv)section 205 advancement of general public utility section 36(1)(v)proviso to section 2(15)section 52 section 2(15)section 10(23c)mli put to use application of income

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

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 1601/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…

M/S Bangalore Metropolitian Transport Corporation, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Range-17, Bangalore

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

ITA 1600/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)

ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1(2), New Delhi vs. Indian Olympic Association, New Delhi

ITA 1651/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Section 11Section 2(15)

…Income Tax Act; the Assessing Officer (AO) had ruled that the assessee was disentitled to the exemptions. The CIT(A) and the ITAT, however, reversed the decision and relied upon the decision of this Court in India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (2015) 371 ITR 333. The second question urged is with respect to the alleged double benefit claimed by the assessee i.e. towards depreciation reported in respect of the assets acquired out of previous exempt income. On this too the Tribunal relied upon a binding decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Rajasthan & Gujarat Charitable Foundation (2018) 402 ITR 441.”…

ACIT(E)- Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs. India Habitat Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 5779/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…venue, the ITAT in ITA.No.4457/Del./ 2015 vide Order Dated 26.06.2018, after analyzing the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-Tax Act in the light of Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Trade Promotion Organization vs., DGIT (E) 371 ITR 333 (Del.) has not only allowed the benefit of 14 ITA.No.5779/Del./2017 India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. Section 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee-society, but also held that once the benefit of Section 11 has been granted and the registration under Section 12AA of the Act is still continuing, the income computation has to be made in terms o…

Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi vs. ACIT Circle-4, Agra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 149/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…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…

ACIT Circle-4, Agra vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 355/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

Jhasi Development Authority, Jhansi vs. Dy. C.I.T., Circle-4, Agra

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 256/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. M/S. Karnataka Industrial

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/205/2016HC Karnataka30 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260Section 5

…iness. It is further submitted that the Tribunal by misinterpreting the ratio of the decision rendered by the Honb’le High Court of Delhi in ‘India Trade Promotion 7 Organization vs. Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions)’,(2015) 371 ITR 333, has wrongly held that the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature and the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee. It is also urged that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has misinterpreted the ratio of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesa…

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)

…are driven primarily by a desire or motive to earn profit and do charity through the “advancement an object of general public utility” then such institutes shall not be regarded as institutions established for charitable purposes. Hon'bleDelhi High Court in (371 ITR 333) in India Trade Promotion Vs. DGIT has held that the correct interpretation of proviso to section 2(15) would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purposes of “advancement of any other object of general public utility” and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of ren…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (E) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 951/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 43B

…pted in coming to the conclusion as to whether the proviso to Sec.2(15)"ô1the 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. DGFT( 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…

Niit Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4868/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar , CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263Section 80G

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER NIIT Foundation, Vs. CIT(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN: AACAN3951E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar , CA Shri Ankit Agarwal, CA Revenue by: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT DR Date of Hearing 19/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 27/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (Exemption), New Delhi dated 26.03.2018 for the A…

ITO (E), Delhi vs. M/S. Association of Corporation & Apex Societies of Handlooms, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2087/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyai.T.A. No. 2087/Del/2017 Ay: 2012-13 Ito(E), Vs. M/S Association Of Corporation & Apex Trust Ward 1(1), Societies Of Handlooms, Delhi Handloom Pavilian, Marketing Complex, Near Indian Oil Building, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan:Aaata0822C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…re of the activities and the objectives of the society and merely disallowed the benefit of Section 11 by stating that the activities do not fall under the first five 5 limbs of Sec 2(15) & that principle of mutuality does not apply. The case of ITPO (2015) 371 ITR 333 of Delhi High Court applies to this case also, where it was adjudicated that where institution is not driven by motive to earn profit but to do charity through the advancement of objectives of general public utility, it will be regarded as established for charitable purposes. Further in the case of ICAl (2013) 358 ITR 91, it was observed by the H…

Fixed Income Money Market and Derivaives Asscociation of India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 849/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, AR byFor Respondent: Mrs. Kavita Kaushal, DR

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

…roviso of section 2(15), still the activities of the assessee company is remain a charitable carrying on educational purposes. Further, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vrs. DGIT(E) (2015) 371 ITR 333(Del) and decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Indian Chambers of Commerce vrs ITO (supra). 10. On the other hand, Ld. DR brought to our notice the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and AO and submitted that assessee is not carrying any charitable activity and the interest and misc. income 20 I.T.A. No. 849/Mum/2017 Fixed Income Money Market a…

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

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

ITA 5293/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito(E), Vs All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, Trust Ward-1(1), 1, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabaa3719N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Malik, Advocate & Shri Gulshan Gaba, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th July, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-40 (Exemption), New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Not Appreciating The Fact That The Activity Of The Assessee Of Letting Out Gallery Frequently For A Price Does Not Qualify As Being Called In The Nature Of Charity. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Accumulation Of Income U/S 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, Amounting To Rs.1,53,50,000/- Which The Assessee Has Failed To Utilize Within Prescribed Time As Per Law. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, To Alter Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal Raised Above At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 2(15)

…/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year („AY‟) 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 v. DGIT (E) 11 (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 learned counsel for the Revenue, and having ex…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Petrotech, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4233/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. V.K.Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 2Section 2(15)

…noticing several decisions including that of this Court in DIT vs. Ind u ab ita t Centre (2011) 203 Taxman 510. The ITAT’s decision has relied on several judgments of this Court including Irdu Trade Promotion O rga nisationvs.D inectorU e m.ral oflrvane Ta x 371 ITR 333; PH D C hambers ofC cmmerce 1 Industry vs. D IT\ 357 ITR 296, etc. 3. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact and ruling in Irdu nTrade Prom otionO rga nisathnvs.D Pectord e renal of Incane 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 substa…

The DIT ( Exemption), Kochi vs. M/S.Indian Medical Association Cochin Branch, Cochin

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

ITA 507/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…literal interpretation to the proviso to section 2(15) cannot be given if the objects of the exemption provisions are to be given full effect. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Indian Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. director General of Income-tax (E), 371 ITR 333 while interpreting the effect of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, after analyzing a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as different high courts observed that the only thing which is required to be examined is whether the trust or institution has been established for charitable purposes. The fact that it derives income do…

The ADIT ( Exemption), Kochi vs. M/S.Indian Medical Association Cochin Branch, Cochin

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

ITA 327/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Devki Devi Foundation, New Delhi vs. DIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 1027/DEL/2012[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: -- Devki Devi Foundation, Vs Dit (Exemptions), Plot No.15, 3Rd Floor, 2, Press Enclave Road, Saket, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatd5283G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2011 Of The Dit (Exemptions), Delhi Withdrawing Registration Granted Earlier U/S 12A Of The It Act Since Inception.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR

Section 12A

…f, preservation of environment, etc. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 11 dated - 19th December, 2008 reported in 221 CTR (St) 1 India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DIT(E): 371 ITR 333 - (Del.) Hamdard Laboratories India v. ADIT: 379 ITR 393 (Del.) - Bureau of Indian Standard vs. DGIT(E) : 358 ITR 78 (Del.) - GS1 India vs. DGIT(Exemptions): 262 CTR 585 (Del.) - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT - (Exemptions): 347 ITR 99 (Del.), DIT (Exemptions) v. Commerce Teachers Association: 203 - Taxman 171 (Del.)…

Bmtc, Bengaluru vs. Addl.D.I.T., Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.532/Bang/2014 and 779/Bang/2013 are

ITA 779/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 18Section 2(15)

….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). 6. Ld. DR, however, placed reliance on the order of the CIT(A) as well as the decision of the Panaji Bench of ITAT in the case of Entertainment Society of Goa vs. CIT (2013) 34 taxman.com 210 (Panaji-Trib.) wherein the Tribunal took the view that organizing and hosting of International Film Festival and building Multiplexes, Auditorium…

M/S Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the assessment

ITA 255/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.254 & 255/Bang/2019 (Assessment year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, No.49, 4th & 5th floor, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-56001. … Appellant PAN:AAATK 1305 J Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri P.C.Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 14/05/2019 Date of pronouncement: 17/06/2019 O R D E R Per PAVAN KUMAR GADA…