Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. CIT

65 ITR 611Supreme Court of India1967#5815 most cited

What is Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. CIT authority for?

A trust or institution is considered a valid charity if its primary or dominant purpose is charitable, even if it has other non-charitable objects that are merely ancillary or incidental to the main charitable purpose.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. CIT · 65 ITR 611 · charitable purpose · dominant purpose · ancillary object · incidental object · valid charity · charitable institution

Sections most often in play

Section 12ABSection 2(15)Section 11Section 11(4A)Section 12Section 12ASection 80GSection 12A(1)(ac)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)section 13(8)section 11(4a)mlisection 2(15)section 10(23c)

Judgments citing Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. CIT

Shree Khandelwal Digambar Jain Foundation, Aurangabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed

ITA 2555/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 8Section 80G

…would result in denial of exemption u/s 11/12 to that extent and in that particular previous year only but the CIT(E) in exercise of power u/s 12AB, cannot deny registration to assessee. The decisions in East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 611 (SC) and Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC) relied by Ld. CIT(E) are not related to grant of registration but are for computation of total income by Assessing Authority. In present case, we are concerned with grant of registration by CIT(E), therefore those decisions are not relevant. It also remains a fact, as shown by Ld. AR w…

Audyogik Nidhi Vishwast Sanstha Poona, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune, Pmt Building

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

ITA 2135/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraaudyogik Nidhi Vishwast Sanstha The Cit (Exemption), Poona Pune 366, Narayan Peth, Limaye Vs. Building, Laxmi Road, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaata1619H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

…would result in denial of exemption u/s 11/12 to that extent and in that particular previous year only but the CIT(E) in exercise of power u/s 12AB, cannot deny registration to assessee. The decisions in East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 611 (SC) and Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC) relied by Ld. CIT(E) are not related to grant of registration but are for computation of total 16 income by Assessing Authority. In present case, we are concerned with grant of registration by CIT(E), therefore those decisions are not relevant. It also remains a fact, as shown by Ld.…

Aruva Foundation, Mandsaur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for

ITA 399/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…submitted that the CIT(E) granted assessee a proper opportunity to amend objects, still the assessee kept object No. 2 & 3 as commercial. Ld. DR further contended that the CIT(E) has also relied upon East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 611 (SC) to hold that all objects must be charitable and that application of income to charitable purpose is immaterial. Further, the CIT(E) has also relied upon Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC) wherein it was held that if the trust-deed provides many charitable objects and the trustees are given uncontrolled discretion to spen…

Aruva Foundation, Mandsaur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for

ITA 398/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…submitted that the CIT(E) granted assessee a proper opportunity to amend objects, still the assessee kept object No. 2 & 3 as commercial. Ld. DR further contended that the CIT(E) has also relied upon East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 611 (SC) to hold that all objects must be charitable and that application of income to charitable purpose is immaterial. Further, the CIT(E) has also relied upon Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC) wherein it was held that if the trust-deed provides many charitable objects and the trustees are given uncontrolled discretion to spen…

Ashwini Sahakari Rungnalaya & Research Center, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

…ct in the registered bye-laws). In such circumstance their Hon’ble lordships in ‘Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs CIT’ (supra) reiterating its ratio laid in ‘Lakshmi Narain Lath Trust Vs CIT’, [1969] 73 ITR 402 ‘East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT’ [1967] 65 ITR 611 (SC) and ‘Mohammad- Ibrahim Riza Malak Vs CIT’ AIR 1930 PC 226, have held that, the assessee is not eligible for registration, consequently de-horsed from claiming exemptions. 12.2.4 Insofar as discretionary utilization of profits for conducting few free or concessional medical camps for weaker/poor patients is concerned, in our considered view i…

Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasee vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…cts are distributive, each and everyone of the objects must be charitable in order that the trust or institution might be upheld as a valid charity - Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. CIT [1930] LR 57 IA 260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity - CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722. The test wh…

Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasee vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…cts are distributive, each and everyone of the objects must be charitable in order that the trust or institution might be upheld as a valid charity - Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. CIT [1930] LR 57 IA 260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity - CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722. The test wh…

M/S. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Varanasi

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…cts are distributive, each and everyone of the objects must be charitable in order that the trust or institution might be upheld as a valid charity - Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. CIT [1930] LR 57 IA 260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity - CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722. The test wh…

M/S. Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…cts are distributive, each and everyone of the objects must be charitable in order that the trust or institution might be upheld as a valid charity - Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. CIT [1930] LR 57 IA 260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity - CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722. The test wh…

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kedra, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

M/S Om Sat Sanatan Geeta Bhawan Trust, Barnala vs. CIT (E), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/CHANDI/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2021AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya (CIT-DR)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…substantially religious in nature, the institution is not eligible for approval under Section 80G of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1997) 65 ITR 611. Accordingly, the application moved by the assessee for grant of approval U/s 80G of the Act was rejected. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee Trust was established on 19/10/1964 and granted registration U/s 12AA of the Act on 01/03/1976 and that the assessee is filing re…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Exemption vs. Association of Third Party Administrators

The appeal is dismissed with no orders

ITA/1071/2018HC Delhi20 Jan 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 12ASection 260A

…ohammed ITA 1071/2018 Page 10 of 19 Ibrahim Riza v. CIT [1930] LR 57 IA 260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity - CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722. The t…

M/S.Bharathakshemam, Thrissur vs. The ITO, Thrissur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

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

…g the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharmodayam Co. (1977) 109 ITR 527 and following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim Riaz vs. CIT AIR 1930 PC 226 and East India Industries (Madras) P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 611, held that since both the said activities involved profit-making the objects of promotion of industries and "public good" were not charitable purposes and the assessee was not I.T.A. No. 590/Coch/2019 7.1 Prior to substitution, clause (15) as amended by the Finance Act, 1983 w.e.f. 1-4-1984 reads as follows: “charitable purpose” includes relief…

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)

…DELHI BENCH:‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 6352/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) DDIT(E), vs All India Football Federation, Inv. Cir.-I, Sector-19, Phase-I, Delhi. Dwarka, New Delhi. AADTS1441C Appellant by Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR Respondent by Sh. Sunil Arora, CA Sh. Pankaj Jain, CA Ms. Ruchika Jain, CA Date of Hearing 07.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2015 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue arising from the order of the of ld. CIT(A)’s- XXI, New Delhi dated 16.09.2013 for A.Y.…

Mohammed Ibrahim Riza v. CIT (65 ITR 611) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax