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)

Electronic City Industries Association, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, assessee's appeals for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed as indicated above & revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R)

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

…a, placed on the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board in ITA No.661/Bang/2014 dt.20.4.2016 for A.Y. 2010-11. (ii) India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. DCIT (Exemptions) (2015) 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi H.C)/ 371 ITR 333 (Delhi). (iii) GSI India Vs. DCIT (Exemptions) (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 364 (Delhi H C). 6.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative placed strong reliance on the orders of the authorities below that hold the proviso to Sec. 2(15) of the Act is squarely attracted to the assessee in the case on hand. 6.4.1 We have heard the rival content…

Firozabad Shikohabad, Firozabad vs. C.I.T.-II, Agra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/AGR/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA Before: Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 55/Agra/2015 A.Y: 2014-15 M/s Firozabad Shikohabad vs. CIT-II, Agra Development Authority, Dabrai, Firozabad (U.P.) PAN: AAALE 0020 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT. DR Respondent by Shri Alok Farsaiya, CA Date of Hearing 09.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement 07.02.2018 ORDER PER, DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT-II, Agra dated 29.09.2014, rejecting application for registra…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

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

ITA 2874/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

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

…everal decisions as under:- I. ICAI Accounting Research Foundation and Ors. Vs. DGIT 321 ITR 73 II. Bureau of Indian Standards Vs. DGIT (Exemptions) 358 ITR 78 III. GS1 India Vs. DGIT (Exemptions) 262 CTR 285 IV. India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. DIT(E) 371 ITR 333 V. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. DIT (E) 357 ITR 296 VI. National Interest Exchange of India Vs. DIT (Exemption) ITA No. 3033/Del/2005 VII. Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures 159 ITD 659 VIII. National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Vs. ADIT. ITA No. 1115/Del/2013 IX. Bombay Presidency Golf Club Vs. DIT 52 52SOT…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

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

ITA 2873/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

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

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. New Delhi Young Men'S Christian Association (Ymca), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4983/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2012-13] The D.C.I.T[E] Vs. New Delhi Young Men’S Circle – 2(1) Christian Association Ltd New Delhi 1, Jai Singh Road, Connaught Place New Delhi Pan : Aaatn 1200 H Co No. 83/Del/2016 (A/O Ita No. 4983/Del/2015 [Assessment Year: 2012-13]) New Delhi Young Men’S Vs. The D.C.I.T[E] Christian Association Ltd Circle – 2(1) 1, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Pan : Aaatn 1200 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

…) 225 ITR 1010 (SC) was cited in support of the argument that so long as the surplus was deployed in promoting charity there was no aberration. Ld. Counsel also relied upon the Delhi High Court decision in India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E) (2015) 371 ITR 333 for explaining the meaning of the term charity as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act. 25. We have considered rival contentions and have gone through the impugned order, the Paper Book and also the case laws which have been cited before us. We are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is flawless and so the assessee has to succeed in this cas…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Technology Development Board, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 6630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.S.Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaidcit(E) Technology Circle-2(1) Development Board New Delhi Wing-A, Ground Floor, Vishkarma Bhawan, Saheed Jeet Singh Vs Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaalt0531B Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K.Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Juneja, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143Section 2Section 2(15)

…ged, i.e., whether the royalty received fell within the mischief of the proviso to section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is absolutely illegal ground on account of several judgments by this including that the judgment in ITPO vs. DGIT (Exemptions) (2015) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi). No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.” 15. It is observed that Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also placed reliance upon its own decision which was considered by Ld. CIT (A) while deciding the issue at the 1st appellate stage. In our considered view the issue now stands settled by various decisions of Hon’ble juri…

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

ITA 6588/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain & Shri Ashish ChadhaFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Senior DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ved, admission fee received, meeting & conference contribution, interest, misc. income, CEAMA News 10. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions) – 6 ITA No.6588/Del./2015 (2015) 371 ITR 333 (Del.) while deciding the identical issue held as under :- “Section 2(15), read with section 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable purpose – Object of general public utility (Proviso) - Whether in deciding whether any activity is in nature of trade, commerce or business or is one for rendering any service in relation to any trade, co…

M/S. Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association, Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

ITA 782/IND/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

Section 13Section 2Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE "ी च""मोहन गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket DCIT, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAATG3527C Appellant by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, & Shri Arpit Gaur (AR) Revenue by Shri Lal Chand (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GA…

Gyaan Vikas Foundation, Siliguri vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1454/KOL/2015[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1454&1455/Kol/2015

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

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

…of the trust/institution constitutes advancement of any other object to general public utility. The ld. Counsel made a reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vs DGIT (Exemption) 3 and Others 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on similar facts came to the conclusion that merely because fee or some other consideration is collected or received by an institution, it would not loose its character of having been established for charitable purpose. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court also held that if the dominant activity of the institu…

DDIT (E), Delhi vs. Petrotech, New Delhi

ITA 6259/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiddit(E), Vs. Petrotech, Inv. Cir-Ii, Room No. 306, Aayakar 601/603, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaaap0965E (Appellant) (Respondent )

For Appellant: Sh Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

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

…laced on the following decisions:  ICAI v. DGIT( E): 358 ITR 91(Del. HC)  PHD Chambers of Commerce & Industry v. DIT(E): 357 ITR 296 (Del. HC)  Hamdard Laboratories India vs. DGIT: 216 Taxman 201 (Del. HC)  India trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E): 371 ITR 333 (Del. HC)  GS1 India vs. DGIT(Exemptions): 262 CTR 585 (Del. HC))  Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT(Exemptions): 27 taxmann.com 127 (Del. HC)  DIT v. Ahmedabad Management Association: 366 ITR 85 (Guj. HC)  DivyaYogMandir Trust vs. JCIT: 153 ITD 368 (Del.)  Mehrangarh Museum Trust vs. ACIT: 67 SOT 1 (Jodh.)  Water and Land Management Trai…

Society for Participatory Research in Asia, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1553/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Shaily Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…y of the activity.” 5.2 Thus the amended provision of section 2(15) of the Act will have no application viz-a-viz the clauses other than object of general public utility. The Hon’ble Court further in the case of Indian Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) 371 ITR 333 (Del) on examination of the proviso, has held that the proviso has two parts. The first part has reference to the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. The second part has reference to any activity of rendering any service "in relation to" any trade, commerce or business. Both these parts are further subject to…

Employers Federation of Southern India, Chennai vs. ADIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1854/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1854/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-2010. M/S. Employers Federation Vs. The Assistant Direcotor Of Of Southern India, Income Tax, No.33, Hindi Pracher Street, Exemption –Iii, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaaat 0118M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. Ashush Tripathi, IRS, JCIT

Section 11Section 11ASection 12ASection 2(15)

…decision of same Bench in the case of the Southern India Chamber of Commerce & Industry (supra), in the latter case the Co-ordinate bench had considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of Indian Trade Promotion Organization vs. DCIT (2015) 374 ITR 333, (2015) 114 DTR 329, while holding that if the dominant object of a federation was promotion, protection and development of trade, commerce and industry without any motive to earn profits, any income from such activity could be considered as incidental or ancillary to the dominant object which was welfare and common good of the country’s trade, c…

Credit Gurantee Fund Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6282/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklacredit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro & Small Enterprises, 7Th Floor, Sme Development Centre, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan:Aaatc 2613D ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Pirmal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Prawin Kumar

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(3)Section 263

…f Commerce and Industry vs. DIT(E), 357 ITR 296. (ii)Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Another v. DGI(E) And Other, 358 ITR 91(Del) 15 (iii) GSI India v. DGIT(E), 360 ITR 138(Del) (iv) India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E) & Others, 371 ITR 333 (Del) 5.6 We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Before we proceed to address the controversy relating to invoking of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, we may briefly recapitulate the fact-situation. As noted earlier, the main object and purpose of the assessee Trust is to give guarantee for loans and advances disbursed by le…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Accurate Education & Research Society

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/945/2016HC Delhi23 Dec 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 11Section 2(15)

…asoning for the years under question i.e., 2010-11. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that in terms of the judgment and order of this Court reported as India Trade Promotional Organization Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Ors., [2015] 371 ITR 333 (Delhi), the activities of the assessee cannot be said to be driven for profit. On the other question, i.e., salary paid to the certain individuals alleged to be the relatives, the same was disallowed as an expense by the ITAT in view of its previous rulings. For these reasons, no substantial question of law arises. 8. Having regard to the consis…

Commissioner of Income Tax(E) vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council

ITA/813/2016HC Delhi22 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 813/2016, CM APP.43263 & 43264/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P. Roychoudhuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Vibhuti Malhotra, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 22.11.2016 1. The questions of law sought to be urged by the Revenue in this appeal are: (i) Whether the amounts received by t…

M/S Calcutta Cricket & Football Club, Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 466/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club -Vs.- I.T.O., Exemption-I, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccc 6337 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate & Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 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:- 17 M/s. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club. A.Yr.2011-12 (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. T…

ITO, Moradabad vs. M/S Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3005/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-3005/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2009-10) Ito Vs Moradabad Development Authority, Ward 1(1), Manth Road, Moradabad Moradabad Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…11. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the decision of Delhi High Court on the detailed interpretation of constitutional validity of the proviso to section 2(15) in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. Director general of Income Tax (Exemption) & ors 371 ITR 333 (Del.) held that the said proviso applies in a situation where the main objective is essentially to carry on business for the purpose of profit. But the situation is different in the assessee’s case where the main objective of ‘town planning’ has been held to be charitable. Registration u/s 12A was very much in existence during the subject year &…

Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4837/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh Jain &For Respondent: Ms Anima Bernwal, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 80G

…tivity for furtherance of the object would not fall within the expressions “ business”, “trade” or “commerce”.’ 10. Almost similar observations have been made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT (E) and Ors. (2015) 374 ITR 333 (Del). While disposing a writ petition filed by the assessee, the Hon’ble High Court held: ‘Merely because a fees 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. It is also important to note that we must examine as to what is the dominant…

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. Science Olympiad Foundation, New Delhi

In the result revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 5407/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv.& ShFor Respondent: Sh.S.R. Senapathi, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…rsing the action of the AO by relying on the judgment of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY 2009-10 and also relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. DGIT(E) (2015) 371 ITR 333 (Delhi) and has rightly held that the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable to the assessee as the assessee is not involved in any trade, commerce or business. For the sake of clarity, we are reproducing the relevant finding of the Tribunal passed vide order dated 16.5.2014 in ITA No. 907/Del/2013 in assessee’s own case for the AY 2009-10,…

M/S Society for Participatory Research in Asia, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), New Delhi

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

ITA 2657/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Society For Participatory Research In Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Trust Ward-Iii, Asia, 42,Tughlakabad Instutional Area, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaats1994H (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…vities and in any case general public utility which could not be made a basis to deny exemption under section 11 an 12 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) 371 ITR 333. 4.5 Having regard to the above, it was prayed that it be held that the appellant is a charitable institution and the exemption claimed under section 11 and 12 of the Act be allowed. 4.6 On the other hand, the learned DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and highlighted that neither the activities of the appellant are in th…