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. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh vs. CIT (E), Lucknow

The appeal is allowed

ITA 113/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2016

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: -- Greater Noida Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, H-169, Chitvan Estate, Lucknow. Sector-Gamma, Gr. Noida City, District – Gautam Budh Nagar. Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalg0129L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: - - Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, First Floor, Commercial Complex, Lucknow. P-2, Sector-Omega 1, Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalt0341D) Assessee By: S/Shri Balbir Singh & Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv., Sk Gupta & Ms. Raj Rani, Cas. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

For Appellant: S/Shri Balbir Singh & AbhinavFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar, CIT( DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 6

…; f) Jammu Dev. Authority vs. Union of India – ITA No. 164 of 2012 – judgment dated 7.11.2013 (J&K); g) Bureau of Indian Standard vs. DG of Income-tax (E)(2013) – 358 ITR 78 (Del.); h) Indian Trade Promotion Organization vs. DG of Income-tax (E) & Ors. (2015)-371 ITR 333 (Del.); 11 j) Managing Director, Haryana State Ind. Dev. Corporation & Ors. Vs. Hari Om Enterprises (2009) – 16 SCC 208; k) Jodhpur Development Authority vs. CIT – ITA No. 508/Jodhpur/2010 – order dated 9.1.2012; L) Jaipur Development Authority vs. CIT – ITA No. 182/Jp/2012 – order dated 30.9.2014. 7. The Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand has ba…

M/S Insitute of Haeemaology, New Delhi vs. ADIT(E), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1225/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1225 /Del/2015 (Assessment Year-2010-11)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 164Section 164(2)Section 80G

…DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-1225 /DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) Institute of Haematology vs ADIT (E) 11/6B Trust Circle-II Shanti Chambers, Pusa Road, New Delhi New Delhi AAAT14267P (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR, Date of Hearing 10.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement 14.01.2016 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29/12/2014 passesd by the Ld. CIT (A) 40, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal a…

National Horticulture Board, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

The appeal are allowed

ITA 6562/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Horticulture Dcit Board, Circle-2, Vs. 85, Institutional Area, Gurgaon Sector-18, Gurgaon Pan:Aaatn0804F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Akhil B. Gupta, Ca Respondent By : Sh.P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Akhil B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh.P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 010Section 10(23)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234B

…sons set out above, we uphold the grievance of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is, accordingly, directed to delete the impugned addition of Rs 2,20,57,530. The assessee gets the relief accordingly." 8. Further honourable Delhi High court in case of [2015] 371 ITR 333 (Del) India Trade promotion Organization V Director General Of Income Tax Exemption and other has held as under :- 58.In conclusion, we may say that the expression "charitable purpose", as defined in section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take color and be considered in the context of section 10(23C)(iv) of…

I.T.O (E) - 1, Kolkata vs. Indian Leather Products Association, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 735/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kr.Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Varsha Jalan, Advocate & Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 80G

…pted in coming to the conclusion as to whether the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the 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. DGIT(Exemption) and others 371 ITR 333 (Delhi). 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 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 charitabl…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S E Dastur &For Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…erein the Proviso to section 2(15) has been explained that “profit motive” is not a sole criteria for denying the exemption. He strongly relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of India Trading Promotion Organization vs DIT reported in [2015] 371 ITR 333, wherein the entire concept of proviso to section 2(15) have been explained and dealt with. Thus, he submitted that it cannot be held that order of the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR submitted that, once there was a specific amendment brought in section 2(15) by ena…

DDIT (E), Delhi vs. M/S. All India Football Federation, New Delhi

ITA 6352/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 11Section 2(15)

…, when a token fee is collected from the beneficiaries in the course of activity they are established and they undertake.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. Director General of Income-tax (Exemptions) & Ors. [2015] 371 ITR 333, held vide para 58 as follows:- “58. In conclusion, we may say that the expression "charitable purpose", as defined in Section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) of the said Act. It is also clear that if the literal interpretation is given to th…

Karnataka Water Supply & Drainage Board vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 283/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT-III(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

…ted in coming to the conclusion as to whether the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the 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. DGIT(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 be…

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. Addl.DIT

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ted in coming to the conclusion as to whether the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the 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. DGIT(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 be…