Pollution Control Board v. CIT

42 SOT 343Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#10016 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Pollution Control Board v. CIT

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rejudice, even if services are held to be rendered, it is for the GOM and not for any trade, business or commerce. d. We rely on the decision of Hon, ITAT of Chandigarh in the case of Himachal Pradesh Environment protection and Pollution Control Board vs CIT (42 SOT 343) wherein it was held that "In order to invoke second limb of proviso to s. 2(15), ‘rendering of service to trade, commerce or business’ must be such that it has a profit motive—Activities performed by the assessee are regulatory functions for the public good, and any collection of fees or charges in the course of discharging these regulatory funct…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rejudice, even if services are held to be rendered, it is for the GOM and not for any trade, business or commerce. d. We rely on the decision of Hon, ITAT of Chandigarh in the case of Himachal Pradesh Environment protection and Pollution Control Board vs CIT (42 SOT 343) wherein it was held that "In order to invoke second limb of proviso to s. 2(15), ‘rendering of service to trade, commerce or business’ must be such that it has a profit motive—Activities performed by the assessee are regulatory functions for the public good, and any collection of fees or charges in the course of discharging these regulatory funct…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rejudice, even if services are held to be rendered, it is for the GOM and not for any trade, business or commerce. d. We rely on the decision of Hon, ITAT of Chandigarh in the case of Himachal Pradesh Environment protection and Pollution Control Board vs CIT (42 SOT 343) wherein it was held that "In order to invoke second limb of proviso to s. 2(15), ‘rendering of service to trade, commerce or business’ must be such that it has a profit motive—Activities performed by the assessee are regulatory functions for the public good, and any collection of fees or charges in the course of discharging these regulatory funct…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rejudice, even if services are held to be rendered, it is for the GOM and not for any trade, business or commerce. d. We rely on the decision of Hon, ITAT of Chandigarh in the case of Himachal Pradesh Environment protection and Pollution Control Board vs CIT (42 SOT 343) wherein it was held that "In order to invoke second limb of proviso to s. 2(15), ‘rendering of service to trade, commerce or business’ must be such that it has a profit motive—Activities performed by the assessee are regulatory functions for the public good, and any collection of fees or charges in the course of discharging these regulatory funct…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rejudice, even if services are held to be rendered, it is for the GOM and not for any trade, business or commerce. d. We rely on the decision of Hon, ITAT of Chandigarh in the case of Himachal Pradesh Environment protection and Pollution Control Board vs CIT (42 SOT 343) wherein it was held that "In order to invoke second limb of proviso to s. 2(15), ‘rendering of service to trade, commerce or business’ must be such that it has a profit motive—Activities performed by the assessee are regulatory functions for the public good, and any collection of fees or charges in the course of discharging these regulatory funct…

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 149/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…rs:-  Infoparksvs.Dy.CIT(TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection &Pollution Control Board Vs CIT[2010] 42 SOT 343(Chd) [ Page No. 57 ]  Entertainment Society of Goa vs CIT [2013] 34 Taxman.com 210 (Panji) [ Page No. 61 ] & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 43 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017)  M/s VanitaSamaj Vs DIT(E) ITA No.1034/Mum/2012 ITAT Mumbai dt. 26.02.2014 [ Page No. 71 ]  Rajasthan Housing Board vs. CIT [2012] 21 taxman.com 77 (ITAT Jai…

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 355/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…rs:-  Infoparksvs.Dy.CIT(TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection &Pollution Control Board Vs CIT[2010] 42 SOT 343(Chd) [ Page No. 57 ]  Entertainment Society of Goa vs CIT [2013] 34 Taxman.com 210 (Panji) [ Page No. 61 ] & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 43 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017)  M/s VanitaSamaj Vs DIT(E) ITA No.1034/Mum/2012 ITAT Mumbai dt. 26.02.2014 [ Page No. 71 ]  Rajasthan Housing Board vs. CIT [2012] 21 taxman.com 77 (ITAT Jai…

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 256/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

…rs:-  Infoparksvs.Dy.CIT(TDS)[2010] 329 ITR 404 Kerala HC [ Page No. 48 ]  Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency vs CCIT[2012]28 Taxmann.com 288(AP) [ Page No. 50 ]  Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection &Pollution Control Board Vs CIT[2010] 42 SOT 343(Chd) [ Page No. 57 ]  Entertainment Society of Goa vs CIT [2013] 34 Taxman.com 210 (Panji) [ Page No. 61 ] & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 43 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017)  M/s VanitaSamaj Vs DIT(E) ITA No.1034/Mum/2012 ITAT Mumbai dt. 26.02.2014 [ Page No. 71 ]  Rajasthan Housing Board vs. CIT [2012] 21 taxman.com 77 (ITAT Jai…

DCIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 1377/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11

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

…sessees have received sponsorship fees: i) Hamsadhwani vs. DIT (E) (2012) 19 Taxmann.com 10 ITAT Chennai. ii) ADIT (E) vs. Chembur Gymkhana (2009) 34 SOT 103 Mumbai ITAT. iii) Hlmanchal Pradesh Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board vs. CIT (2010) 42 SOT 343 Chandigarh ITAT. 5. It was further submitted that the AO is not justified in denying the depreciation as the same has been claimed on the basis of computing the income on commercial principle. It was submitted that the exemption u/s 11(1) was denied by the AO for the A.Y 2009-10 but the same was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi and the sam…

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ( DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI ) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2267/Del./2013 Assessment Year : 2009–10 Patanjali Yogpeeth (Nyas) ADIT [Exemptions] D–13, Pushpanjali Enclave, Vs. Range : II, Pitampura, DELHI. New Delhi. PAN : AABTP 0560 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; & Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.; Respondent by : Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]; Date of Hearing : 19.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2017. O R D E R PER I. C. SUDHIR, J. M. : The assessee has questioned first appellate…

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)

…lation to any trade commerce or business." (Emphasis supplied). 15.1 In this regard, the reliance has been placed on the judgment by Chandigarh Bench in the case of Himachal Pradesh Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board vs. CIT reported in (2010) 42 SOT 343. The observation of the Tribunal in this judgment is that; “where an object of general public utility is not merely a mask to hide true purpose or rendering of any service in relation thereto and where such services are being rendered as purely incidental to as sub-serviente to make objective of general public utility, carrying on bonafide activi…