Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Income Tax Officer

167 TTJ 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#6205 most cited

What is Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Income Tax Officer authority for?

A charitable institution's activities are not considered commercial if they advance objects of general public utility and are not conducted for profit. The assessment authorities' view that the assessee was engaged in commercial activities is not sustainable.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Indian Chamber of Commerce · section 2(15) · charitable activities · commercial activity · general public utility · advancement of objects · ITAT Kolkata

Also reported as

156 ITD 39367 SOT 176

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquiryassessment order erroneouslack of enquirymere change of opinionmalabar industrialchildchange of opinionlimited scrutinyerroneous and prejudicialsection 115bbsection 115b

Judgments citing Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Income Tax Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. FRAGRANCE AND FLAVOURS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2973/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2973/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2017-18) Income Tax Officer (E)-1(3), Mumbai Room No.619, Mtnl Telephone Exchange Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Fragrance & Flavours Association Of India, 2-B, Court Chambers, 25, Sir Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaaaf-0029-K ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ankush Kapoor, Cit Dr. "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Sathe सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04/07/2023, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ic at large, therefore, on the said count also the same can safely be held as not being in the nature of a commercial activity. We have also deliberated on the order of the ITAT, Kolkata, in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. Income Tax Officer (2015) 167 TTJ 1 (Kolkata) as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, and find that a similar view in context of the issue before us was taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. 13. We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view of the lower authorities that the assessee was involved in ca…

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

BOMBAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 1174/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 1Section 11Section 2(15)

…s not available before the CIT(A) while passing the order and the CIT(A) in para 5.3.12 and 5.3.14 of its order dated 19.12.2014 for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively has held that the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal in Indian Chamber of Commerce vs. ITO (67 SOT 176) (Kolkata ITAT) is distinguishable as proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was not adjudicated upon since a ground in respect of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was not raised. 19. We noted that the observations of the CIT(A) mentioned in the order of Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 is incorrect because the Kolkata Tribunal in Indian C…

BOMBAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & MACKINNON MACKENZIE BUILDING,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXE)-1 (1) , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5832/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5832/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Bombay Chamber Of Commerce & The Income-Tax Officer Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, 4, (Exemptions)-1(1), फनाभ/ Room No. 508, 5 Th Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcb2270M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi & Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Drs’ ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi &
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

…s not available before the CIT(A) while passing the order and the CIT(A) in para 5.3.12 and 5.3.14 of its order dated 19.12.2014 for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively has held that the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal in Indian Chamber of Commerce vs. ITO (67 SOT 176) (Kolkata ITAT) is distinguishable as proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was not adjudicated upon since a ground in respect of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was not raised. 19. We noted that the observations of the CIT(A) mentioned in the order of Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 is incorrect because the Kolkata Tribunal in Indian C…

ITO -E (2)(4), MUMBAI vs. INDO ITALIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6237/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ITO-E (2)(4) Vs. Indo Italian Chamber of 503, 5th Floor Commerce & Industry Piramal Chambers 502, Bengal Industry Lalbaug, Parel Compound Mumbai- 400 012 Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai- 400 025 PAN/GIR No.AABCT1939R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Assessee by None Date of Hearing 14/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement 22/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M.BALAGANESH (AM): This appeal in ITA No.6237/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Incom…

ALL INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC TRADE AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

ITA 1705/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita No. 1387/Mum/2020 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita No. 1705/Mum/2019 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2014-15) All India Photographic Trade & The Income Tax Officer(E) Industry Association Ward 1(1), Mumbai 1 S T C-3/6, Taj Building, 210, फनाभ/ Floor, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Vs. Mumbai (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaaa0042K अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Kirit Sanghvi, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.12.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sanghvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…so the same can safely be held as not being in the nature of a commercial activity. We have also deliberated on the order of the ITAT, Kolkata, in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. Income Tax Officer ITA Nos. 1387/M/20 & 1705/M/19 Page No. 29 (2015) 167 TTJ 1 (Kolkata) as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, and find that a similar view in context of the issue before us was taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. 13. We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view of the lower authorities that the assessee was involved in ca…

CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)- 3 , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

ITA 2815/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodconfederation Of Real Estate Acit (Exemption)-1(1), Developers Association Of India, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 5Th Floor, Phd House, Vs. Parel, Mumbai 400 012 4/2, Siri Insitutional Area, New Delhi-110016

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri. Kumar Padmapani Bora &
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 8

…ic activity, therefore, on the said count also the same can safely be held as not being in the nature of a commercial activity. We have also deliberated on the order of the ITAT, Kolkata, in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. Income Tax Officer (2015) 167 TTJ 1 (Kolkata) as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, and find that a similar view in context of the issue before us was taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. 13. We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view of the lower authorities that the assessee was involved in ca…

CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATON OF INDIA ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (EXEM)-1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

ITA 6896/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodconfederation Of Real Estate Acit (Exemption)-1(1), Developers Association Of India, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 5Th Floor, Phd House, Vs. Parel, Mumbai 400 012 4/2, Siri Insitutional Area, New Delhi-110016

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri. Kumar Padmapani Bora &
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 8

…ic activity, therefore, on the said count also the same can safely be held as not being in the nature of a commercial activity. We have also deliberated on the order of the ITAT, Kolkata, in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. Income Tax Officer (2015) 167 TTJ 1 (Kolkata) as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, and find that a similar view in context of the issue before us was taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. 13. We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view of the lower authorities that the assessee was involved in ca…

ITO(E)-1(3), MUMBAI vs. FRAGRANCE & FLAVOURS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4236/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Ito(Exemption)-1(3) Vs. M/S. Fragnance & Flavours Mumbai Association Of India Room No.511, 5Th Floor 2B, Court Chambers, 28, Piramal Chamber, Sir Vithaldas Thackeray Marg, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400102 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaaaf0029K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…ponsored the seminar could not be construed and characterised as a commercial activity. The ld. A.R in order to buttress his aforesaid contention relied on the order of the ITAT, Kolkata, in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. Income Tax Officer (2015) 167 TTJ 1 (Kolkata). Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the lower authorities by wrongly concluding that the assessee was carrying on commercial activities had wrongly divested the assessee of its statutory entitlement of claim of exemption under Sec. 11. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (fo…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2011-12 All India Rubber Industries Vs. ADIT(E) – II (2), Mumbai Association (Respondent) 601, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 099. (Appellant) PAN : AAACA7076R : A.Y : 2012-13 All India Rubber Industries Vs. ITO(E) – I (1), Mumbai Association (Respondent) 601, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 099. (Appellant) PAN : AAACA7076R : A.Y : 2013-14 All India Rubber Industries Vs. ACIT(E) –…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2011-12 All India Rubber Industries Vs. ADIT(E) – II (2), Mumbai Association (Respondent) 601, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 099. (Appellant) PAN : AAACA7076R : A.Y : 2012-13 All India Rubber Industries Vs. ITO(E) – I (1), Mumbai Association (Respondent) 601, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 099. (Appellant) PAN : AAACA7076R : A.Y : 2013-14 All India Rubber Industries Vs. ACIT(E) –…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2011-12 All India Rubber Industries Vs. ADIT(E) – II (2), Mumbai Association (Respondent) 601, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 099. (Appellant) PAN : AAACA7076R : A.Y : 2012-13 All India Rubber Industries Vs. ITO(E) – I (1), Mumbai Association (Respondent) 601, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 099. (Appellant) PAN : AAACA7076R : A.Y : 2013-14 All India Rubber Industries Vs. ACIT(E) –…

FRAGRANCE & FLAVOURS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 6545/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Pawan Singhita No. 6545 /Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 253Section 254(1)

…ic at large, therefore, on the said count also the same can safely be held as not being in the nature of a commercial activity. We have also deliberated on the order of the ITAT, Kolkata, in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. Income Tax Officer (2015) 167 TTJ 1 (Kolkata) as had been relied upon by the Ld. A.R, and find that a similar view in context of the issue before us was taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. 13. We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view of the lower authorities that the assessee was involved in c…

M/S. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

ITA 210/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR
Section 120Section 12ASection 254(2)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Orissa Cricket Association Vs. CIT(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, PAN No. : AAAAO 0319 F AND Orissa Cricket Association Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha PAN No. : AAAAO 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा…

FRAGRANCE AND FLAVOURS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5453/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Fragrance & Flavours Ddit (E) – 1(2), Association Of India; 2-B, Coutr बिधम/ Mumbai. Chambers, 28 Sir Vithaldas Vs. Thackeray Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaaf0029K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Padmaja, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ic at large, therefore, on the said count also the same can safely be held as not being in the nature of a commercial activity. We have also deliberated on the order of the ITAT, Kolkata, in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. Income Tax Officer (2015) 167 TTJ 1 (Kolkata) as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R, and find that a similar view in context of the issue before us was taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. 17 Fragrance and Flavours Vs. DDIT(E) 13. We thus, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view of the lower authoritie…

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

…of the Act: DDIT ( Exemption) VPetrotech ITA No 6259/ Del/2012 A Y 2009-10  Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers vs. ITO(E): 159 ITD 659 (Del.)  India International Centre vs. ADIT(E): 154 ITD 220 (Del.)  ITO vs. Indian Leather Products Association: 156 ITD 393 (Kol.) It is respectfully submitted that the legal position that emerges from the aforesaid decisions is that where a charitable trust/ institution undertakes/ carries on commercial activities in the nature of business, trade or commerce with a view to make profit, then such trust/ institution would not be regarded as `charitable‟, irrespective o…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज",लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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) : Shri. V.S. Manoj, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Ashush Tripathi, IRS, J…