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

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the assessment

ITA 254/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S National Foundation Trust, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Bhatia, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR

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

…in view of the proviso to section 2 (15). 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee strongly relied upon the following judgements of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ICAI vs. DGIT (E), 347 ITR 99 (Delhi); and India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. DGIT, 371 ITR 333, (Delhi High Court); and submitted that in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, any receipt on account of charging of fees does not tantamount that the assessee is involved in promotion of sport, education and other allied activities and therefore such activities is leviable for exemption u/s 11(1). The fact…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4788/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer(E), Vs. M/S. Association Of Trust Ward-1(1), Delhi Corporation & Apex Societies Of Handlooms, Near Gate No.2, Pragati Maidan, Bhairon Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaata0822C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri C.P. Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri K.V.S.R. Krishnan, Ca

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

…ature 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 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 ICAI (2013) 358 ITR 91, it was observed by the H…

M/S. All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, New Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1448/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Ms. Soumya Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr.DR

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

…llant proceedings.” 3.0 The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee’s case was covered in its favour by the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. DGIT (Exemptions) reported in (2015) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has read down the provision of Section 2(15) and has ruled that merely because a fee or some other consideration is collected or received by an institution, it would not lose its character of having been established for a charitable purpose. Reliance was also placed on order of ITAT Delhi Bench in th…

M/S. All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, New Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1449/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Ms. Soumya Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr.DR

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

M/S. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club, Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward 1(1). Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1105/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…ee. The approach to be adopted in coming to the conclusion as to whether the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act will be applicable has been laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. DGIT(Exemption) and others 371 ITR 333 (Delhi). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has laid down the following very important principles as to how the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act has to be interpreted:- (i) The proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act introduced by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 01.04.2009 has two parts. The first part has reference to the carrying on of any ac…

Assocaiation of State Road Transport Undertaking, New Delhi vs. ADIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1724/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Comr. Of Income-Tax (E), Vs M/S Association Of Road Transport Circle 1(1), New Delhi. Undertaking, Plot No.4A, Psp Block, Pkt. 14, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaaa0233A Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Association Of Road Transport Undertaking, Vs. Adit (E), Plot No.4A, Psp Block, Pkt. 14, Circle 1(1), New Delhi. Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi . Pan: Aaaaa0233A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tarandeep Singh Revenue By: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep SinghFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 154Section 2(15)

…urt reached the conclusion that a debatable issue would not fall within the purview of Section 154 of the Act. He further submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs DIG (Exemption), 371 ITR 333, ICAI vs DGIT(E) (2012) 374 ITR 99; and ICAI vs DGIT(E) (2013) 358 ITR 91, “Business Trade” or “Commerce” as used in proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is not objected to exclude entities which are essential for charitable purpose but are conducting some activities for a consideration or a fee without any profit motive and these words used in th…

ACIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Association of Road Transport Undertakings, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1252/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep SinghFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 154Section 2(15)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (E), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Tool and Gauge Manufacturers Association of India, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2864/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Swapna Das, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Kavitha .P, CA

Section 2(15)

…n various judicial pronouncements copy of which has been submitted by her in the paper book. The first judgement cited before us is the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. DGIT(E) as reported in 371 ITR 333 (Delhi). Para 5 of this judgment is relevant and hence, the same is reproduced hereinbelow. “5. The petitioner gave a detailed explanation regarding the nature of its activities. With regard to space rent, it was pointed out that in Page 7 of 18 order to enable the petitioner to fulfill its objectives, the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 27.…

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E)1(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 247/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

…oviso to Sec. 2(15) of the Act, it is essential to establish that the activities in question are carried out with a profit motive. In this connection, reliance has been placed on various decisions, viz. India Trade Promotion Organization vs DGIT (Exemptions), 371 ITR 333 (Del); Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs DGIT (Exemptions), 347 ITR 99 (Del.); DIT (Exemptions) vs Shree Nasik Panchvati Panjrapole, (2017) 150 DTR 249 (Bom.). 8 All India Rubber Industries Association ITA Nos. 1368 & 3994/M/2016 & 247/M/2017 8. It was, therefore, contended that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer denying…

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) II(2), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3994/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1368/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

ITO (E), Delhi vs. Escorts Cardiac Disease Hospital Society, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly

ITA 6439/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. R.M. Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Hauthang, Sr. Dr

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

…at mere receipt of fees or charges does not tantamount that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business as held in the various cases in favour the assessee and the assessee also relied the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. DGIT, 371 ITR 333 (Delhi High Court) 2013 wherein, it was held that mere receipt of fee or charge cannot be said that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business and has accordingly allowed the relief to the ITPO case vide Para 58 and 59 of the order. As per the A.R. for the assessee the assessee is fully covered by the orders of Ld. CIT(A), o…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. New Delhi Youg Men'S Christia Association (Ymca), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2675/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Laliet Kumar, Jm Ita No. 2675/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Dcit(E), Vs New Delhi Young Men’S Christian Circle-2(1), Association (Ymca),1, Jai Singh New Delhi Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-11001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn1200H Co No. 82/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 New Delhi Young Men’S Christian Vs Dcit(E), Association (Ymca),1, Jai Singh Circle-2(1), Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-11001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatn1200H Assessee By : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjeet Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: The Appeal By The Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 05.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)- 40, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 2(15)

…x receipts on the ground that they were real income having regard to the nature of activity for which the payments were made. The CIT(A) and the ITAT relied upon several judgments including the ruling in India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT (Exemptions) 371 ITR 333 to hold that the AO‟s view was incorrect; accordingly relief was granted to the assessee. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the ruling in India Trade Promotion Organization (supra) which was followed by the ITAT, no question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.” 8. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in this appeal o…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. Consumer Electronics & Appliances Manufactures Association, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6784/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 11Section 12ASection 2

…Coordinate Bench in similar set of facts and circumstances show that the departmental appeal was dismissed relying upon the position of law as considered in the case of Indian Trade Promotion Organization Vs Director General of income-tax (Exemptions) (2015) 371 ITR 333 (Del.). For ready reference we extract the relevant portion : “Before proceeding further, we would like to extract the provisions contained u/s 2(15) of the Act, proviso for ready reference : “2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,---………… 15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, [yoga,] medical relief, [pres…

M/S Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh vs. ITO (Exemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 1382/CHANDI/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT (on 22.3.2018)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The ITO (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh PAN No. AAATC4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Y.K. Sud, CA Respondent by : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT (on 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. DR (on 13.7.2018) Date of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred b…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S India Habitat Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4457/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv

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

…g to Rs.72,76,725/-, the same has been added by him on the ground that it is not covered under the ‘principle of mutuality’. 4. Learned CIT (A) following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (E), 371 ITR 333 (Del.) held that assessee’s activities does not involve in the nature of trade, commerce and business, and therefore, it is outside the mischief of proviso to Section 2(15) and directed the Assessing Officer to allow exemption u/s. 11(1). 5. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. M.P. Rastogi submitted that in the Assessment Year 20…

Indian Institute of Packaging, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E) I(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 191/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm & M/S. Indian Institute Of Vs. Acit (E)I(1), Packaging Mumbai E-2, Midc Area Road No.8, Post Box No.9432, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Pan/Gir No.Aaati1545E Appellant) .. Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM & M/s. Indian Institute of Vs. ACIT (E)I(1), Packaging Mumbai E-2, MIDC Area Road No.8, Post Box No.9432, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 PAN/GIR No.AAATI1545E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K.Shivaram / Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue by Shri M.C.Omi Ningshen Date of Hearing 06/04/2018 Date of Pronouncement 11/04/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 17/10/2016 for A.Y.2013-14 in the matter of order passed u/s.…

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions-2, Hyderabad vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust, Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1701/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva KumarFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

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

…ITA Nos 1700 and 1701 of 2017 Kalinga Cultural Trust Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ SMC Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member ITA Nos.1700 & 1701/Hyd/2017 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 ) Income Tax Officer Vs Kalinga Cultural Trust (Exemptions)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN: AAATK 3517 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Smt. N. Swapna, DR For Assessee: Shri V.Siva Kumar Date of Hearing: 16.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 23.03.2018 O R D E R Both are Revenue’s appeals for the A.Ys 2013-14 & 2014-15 against the common and consolidated order…

Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Sangeetha Sabha, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) I(2)

ITA 1975/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1975/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6858/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 वष" Sri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Ddit (Exemption)-I-(2) Sangeetha Sabha Piramal Chambers, 5Th Floor 292,Comrade Harbanslal Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 012. Sion (East)Mumbai-400 022. Pan:Aaats 2694 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri V. Rajguru-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind Javeri सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2018 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 20/01/2016 Of The Cit(A)-1, Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals For The Same A.Y.The First Appeal Is Against The Regular Appellate Order,Whereas The Second Appeal Is About The Rectification Application Filed Under Section 154 Of The Act. We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals Together. Assessee-A Registered Trust,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2011,Along With The Income & Expenditure Account & Other Financial Statements Declaring Deficit Of Rs. 27.17 Crores. The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment On,10/03/2014,U/S. 143(3)Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.4.51 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind JaveriFor Respondent: Shri V. Rajguru-CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…57 ITR 265) Jeevan Vidya Mission (ITA/770/ Mum/ 2014,dtd.30.09.2014)were relied upon to argue that music was part of educational activity. The cases of Lala Lajpatrai Memorial Trust(IT Appeal No.2307 of 2013 dtd.13.04.2016), India Trade Promotion Organisation(371 ITR 333) and Army Welfare Placement Organisa - tion(ITA/2996/Del/2011 dtd.22.01.15) was referred to stating that provisio to section 2(15) was not applicable. The Departmental Represnetative(DR)heavily relied upon the order of the FAA and stated that the assessee was deeply involved in commercial activities, that education was incidental to letting out t…