India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT9E)

53 Taxmann.com 404High Court2015#2038 most cited

What is India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT9E) authority for?

The Delhi High Court held that the mere receipt of fees or charges by an entity engaged in the advancement of general public utility does not automatically classify its activities as trade, commerce, or business under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(E) · 53 Taxmann.com 404 · section 2(15) proviso · advancement of general public utility · trade commerce or business · receipt of fees · charitable exemption · section 11 · section 10(23C) · non-profit organizations

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 11Section 11 of the Income-tax ActSection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 10(23C)Section 11(1) of the Income-tax ActSection 11(1)(a)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(23)advancement of general public utilitysection 2(13)section 10(23c)(iv)section 12aa(1)section 13(8)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(4a)section 2(15)section 11(1)section 234dsection 10(23c)

Judgments citing India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT9E)

Servants of the People Society, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3658/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)

…t the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business and as such the mischief of the Proviso of section 2(15) is not apparently attracted. We further note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT9E) 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 2015 order dated 22.1.2015 has upheld the constitution validity of the proviso of section 2(15) which was under challenge being discriminatory in view of the Article 14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India but the Hon’ble High Court has read down the strict and literal interpretation of the Proviso of setion 2(15) and…

ACIT (E), New Delhi vs. Servants of the People Society, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3649/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)

…t the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business and as such the mischief of the Proviso of section 2(15) is not apparently attracted. We further note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT9E) 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 2015 order dated 22.1.2015 has upheld the constitution validity of the proviso of section 2(15) which was under challenge being discriminatory in view of the Article 14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India but the Hon’ble High Court has read down the strict and literal interpretation of the Proviso of setion 2(15) and…

ACIT (E), New Delhi vs. Servants of the People Society, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3648/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)

…t the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business and as such the mischief of the Proviso of section 2(15) is not apparently attracted. We further note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT9E) 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 2015 order dated 22.1.2015 has upheld the constitution validity of the proviso of section 2(15) which was under challenge being discriminatory in view of the Article 14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India but the Hon’ble High Court has read down the strict and literal interpretation of the Proviso of setion 2(15) and…

Servants of People Society, New Delhi vs. Addl. DIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3082/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)

…t the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business and as such the mischief of the Proviso of section 2(15) is not apparently attracted. We further note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT9E) 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 2015 order dated 22.1.2015 has upheld the constitution validity of the proviso of section 2(15) which was under challenge being discriminatory in view of the Article 14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India but the Hon’ble High Court has read down the strict and literal interpretation of the Proviso of setion 2(15) and…

Servants of People Society, New Delhi vs. Addl. DIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3081/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)

…t the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business and as such the mischief of the Proviso of section 2(15) is not apparently attracted. We further note that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT9E) 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 2015 order dated 22.1.2015 has upheld the constitution validity of the proviso of section 2(15) which was under challenge being discriminatory in view of the Article 14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India but the Hon’ble High Court has read down the strict and literal interpretation of the Proviso of setion 2(15) and…

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. Servants of the People Society, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 4984/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2011-12 Acit(E), Circle 2(1), Vs. Servants Of People New Delhi Society, 24Th Room No. 2408, Lajpat Bhawan, Floor, Block E-2, Lajpat Nagar-4, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic New Delhi – 110 024 Centre, (Pan: Aaats1730M) New Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…for the AY 2009-10 as well as various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the recent case of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Orgazniation vs. DGIT(E) 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 2015 in which the Hon’ble Jurisdcitional High Court has held that mere receipt of fee or charge cannot be said that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business and accordingly allowed the relief to the assessee and allowed the appeal of the assesee. Against the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tri…

DCIT(E), New Delhi vs. Professional Assistance for Development Action (Pradan), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3662/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit (E), Vs. M/S. Professional Assistance Circle -2(1), For Development Action New Delhi (Pradan), E-1A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaatp0345D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, Ca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit(Dr)

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

…h eligible for exemption u/s 11(1) and the AO has not made out any specific case to show that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business. 4.5 Recently the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E), 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 2015 (order dated 22/01/2015) has upheld the constitution validity of the proviso of section 2(15) which was under challenge being discriminatory in view of the Article 14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India but the Hon'ble High Court has read down the strict and literal interpretation of the Proviso of section 2(15)…

Mahakavi Pandit Bhuramal Samajik Sahkar Nyas, Sagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the

ITA 680/IND/2017[NA]Status: FixedITAT Indore04 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…[ITA 679 & 680/Ind/2017] [Mahakavi Pandit Bhuramal Samajik Sahkar Nyas, Sagar] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.679&680/Ind/2017 Assessment Years: NA Mahakavi Pandit Bhuramal CIT Samajik Sahkar Nyas (Exemption) बनाम/ New Jain Temple, Village Bina Bhopal Vs. Barah, Tah. Deori, Dist. Sagar (M.P.)-470226 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAETM7955N Appellant by Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, A.Rs Respondent by Smt. Ashima Gupta, D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.03…

Mahakavi Pandit Bhuramal Samajik Sahkar Nyas, Sagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the

ITA 679/IND/2017[NA]Status: FixedITAT Indore04 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…[ITA 679 & 680/Ind/2017] [Mahakavi Pandit Bhuramal Samajik Sahkar Nyas, Sagar] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.679&680/Ind/2017 Assessment Years: NA Mahakavi Pandit Bhuramal CIT Samajik Sahkar Nyas (Exemption) बनाम/ New Jain Temple, Village Bina Bhopal Vs. Barah, Tah. Deori, Dist. Sagar (M.P.)-470226 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAETM7955N Appellant by Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, A.Rs Respondent by Smt. Ashima Gupta, D.R. Date of Hearing: 28.03…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. M/S. Indian Hockey Federation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3638/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2010-11 Ito (Exemptions) India Hockey Ward-1(2), Room No. 2417, Federation 30/7, 24Th Floor, E-2-Block, West Patel Nagar Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, New Delhi Vs. Dr. Shyama Prasad Pan Aaaji0054N Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg New Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)

…or the earlier A.Y 2008-:-09 & 2009-10 and there is no apparent reasons to deviate from those appellate orders.” 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has also followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation versus DGIT (E) 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) (order dated 22/01/2015) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that mere receipt of fee or charge cannot be said that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business. 8. In our opinion there is no change of facts in the year under consideration as the sponsoring by Sahara India Commercial Corporation limited and Leisu…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. M/S. Institute of Marketing & Management, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 3632/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI+98BUNAL DELHI BENCH: “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3631 & 3632/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2010-11 ITO(Exemptions), Vs. Institute of Marketing & Ward-1(2), Pratyaksh Kar Management, B-11, Qutab Bhawan, Dr. Shyama Prasad Institutional Area, New Delhi Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAAAI0016R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.DR Respondent by Shri Ajay Baheti, CA Date of hearing 15.01.2019 Date of pronouncement 25.01.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. M/S. Institute of Marketing & Management, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 3631/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI+98BUNAL DELHI BENCH: “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3631 & 3632/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2010-11 ITO(Exemptions), Vs. Institute of Marketing & Ward-1(2), Pratyaksh Kar Management, B-11, Qutab Bhawan, Dr. Shyama Prasad Institutional Area, New Delhi Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAAAI0016R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.DR Respondent by Shri Ajay Baheti, CA Date of hearing 15.01.2019 Date of pronouncement 25.01.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 280/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 220(2)

…ITA 280 of 2014 and ITA 692 of 2013 1 MP Madhyam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 280/Ind/2014 & ITA No.692/Ind/2013 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Madhya Pradesh Madhyam, Bhopal PAN – AAAJM 0294 J :: Appellant Vs ACIT-1(2), Bhopal & ACIT-1(1), Bhopal :: Respondents For Assessee Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. For Revenue Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 03.01.2019 PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM Vide common & consolidated order dated 19.7…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT, Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 692/IND/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 220(2)

…ITA 280 of 2014 and ITA 692 of 2013 1 MP Madhyam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 280/Ind/2014 & ITA No.692/Ind/2013 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Madhya Pradesh Madhyam, Bhopal PAN – AAAJM 0294 J :: Appellant Vs ACIT-1(2), Bhopal & ACIT-1(1), Bhopal :: Respondents For Assessee Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. with Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. For Revenue Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 03.01.2019 PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM Vide common & consolidated order dated 19.7…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. the Poorva Sanskritik Kendra, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3566/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleito (E) Vs The Poorva Sanskritik Kendra Ward-2(3) District Centre, Plot No. 14, New Delhi Laxmi Nagar New Delhi Aabtt1434C (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO (E) Vs The Poorva Sanskritik Kendra Ward-2(3) District Centre, Plot No. 14, New Delhi Laxmi Nagar New Delhi AABTT1434C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Anoop Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Satyajit Goel, CA Date of Hearing 11.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 26/3/2015 passed by CIT(A)-40, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of ap…

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)

…haritable non-profit organization and mere receipt of fees and rents etc. cannot be said that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business. 4.3 Recently the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. DGIT(E), 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 2015 (order dated 22/01/2015) has upheld the constitution validity of the proviso of section 2(15) which was under challenge being discriminatory in view of the Article 14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India but has read down the strict and literal interpretation of the Proviso of section 2(15) and has accordingly al…

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…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. the Indian Golf Union, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department stands

ITA 2653/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer (E), Vs The Indian Golf Union, Ward 2(3), 24Th, 1St Floor, Adchini, New Delhi. New Delhi-110017 (Pan: Aaatt3232B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Respondent By: None

For Appellant: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…Ld. Sr. DR and have also perused the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT(A) while allowing relief to the assessee has followed the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E) reported in 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Del) wherein vide judgment dated 22.01.2015, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while upholding the constitutional validity of proviso to section 2(15) has laid down the strict and literal interpretation of the proviso to section 2(15) and has held that mere receipt of fee or charge will not mean that the assessee is involved in any trade, c…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. National Internet Exchange of India, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2676/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudharyvs Dcit (E), National Internet Exchange Of Circle 2(1), Room No. 2408, India, 24Th Floor, E-2, Block, Praxix Institute For Participatory Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Practices, B-5, Iind Floor, Centre, New Delhi. G.K.Enclave, New Delhi. Aabcn9308A

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER vs DCIT (E), National Internet Exchange of Circle 2(1), Room No. 2408, India, 24th Floor, E-2, Block, Praxix Institute for Participatory Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Practices, B-5, IInd Floor, Centre, New Delhi. G.K.Enclave, New Delhi. AABCN9308A Revenue by Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 05.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 06.06.2018 ORDER PER SHRI N.K. CHOUDHARY, J.M. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Revenue- Department on fe…

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)

…is case, reliance was, inter alia, 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…