Shah. J., in State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi& Bros.

19 STC 1Supreme Court of India1967#2697 most cited

What is Shah. J., in State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi& Bros. authority for?

For an activity to constitute 'business', there must be a course of dealings, either actual or contemplated, with a profit motive, not for sport or pleasure.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi & Bros. · business definition · profit motive · course of dealings · sport or pleasure

Judgments citing Shah. J., in State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi& Bros.

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. ACIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 186/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive, and not for sport or pleasure [Shah. J., in State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi& Bros. , (1964) 15 STC644, 647(SC); StateofGuajrat v. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. , (1967)19 STC 1 (SC) ; Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR…

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow vs. ACIT (E), Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 185/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive, and not for sport or pleasure [Shah. J., in State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi& Bros. , (1964) 15 STC644, 647(SC); StateofGuajrat v. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. , (1967)19 STC 1 (SC) ; Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR…

Lucknow Evelopment Authority, Lucknow vs. I.T.O., Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 164/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive, and not for sport or pleasure [Shah. J., in State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi& Bros. , (1964) 15 STC644, 647(SC); StateofGuajrat v. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. , (1967)19 STC 1 (SC) ; Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR…

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 163/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 11Section 11rSection 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…dealings, either actually continued or contemplated to be continued with a profit motive, and not for sport or pleasure [Shah. J., in State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi& Bros. , (1964) 15 STC644, 647(SC); StateofGuajrat v. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. , (1967)19 STC 1 (SC) ; Director of Supplies and Disposals v. Member, Board of Revenue (1967) 20 STC 398 (SC); CST v. Anil Co-operative Credit Society, (1969) 24 STC 180, 192 (Gui); MahammadFaruq, In re (1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 470,474 (Del); Government Medical Store Depot v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1986) Tax LR…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…& 315/Bang/2020 Page 58 of 70 profit are to be seen. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT, 77 ITR 253 (SC) Janab Abubucker Salt v. CIT, 45 ITR 37 State of Gujarat v. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd., 19 STC 1 (SC) Tash Investment (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 106 taxmann.com 190 (Ahd.Trib) Maanraj Trading (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, 23 taxmann.com 458 (Mum.Trib) CIT v. Smt. Minal Rameshchandra, 167 ITR 507 (Guj) Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.2.2016 Press Release dated 24.8.2019 61. Thus it was submitted that in the instant case, trading in F & 0 derivative has to be treated as…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…& 315/Bang/2020 Page 58 of 70 profit are to be seen. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT, 77 ITR 253 (SC) Janab Abubucker Salt v. CIT, 45 ITR 37 State of Gujarat v. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd., 19 STC 1 (SC) Tash Investment (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 106 taxmann.com 190 (Ahd.Trib) Maanraj Trading (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, 23 taxmann.com 458 (Mum.Trib) CIT v. Smt. Minal Rameshchandra, 167 ITR 507 (Guj) Circular No.6/2016 dated 29.2.2016 Press Release dated 24.8.2019 61. Thus it was submitted that in the instant case, trading in F & 0 derivative has to be treated as…

DCIT (E) 2 (1), Mumbai vs. J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai

In the result, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error and the Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A. Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263Section 80G

…ples, and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC): [2002] 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is that whether the petitioner-Institute pursues…

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1355/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…rat 29 I.T.A. No.2235/DEL/2019 Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the concept and principle of "economic activity" that has gained some acceptability in European Union and England it was explained that the sai…

J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E) 2 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1564/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri NiranjanFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh
Section 12ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)

…ples, and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai 21 I.T.A. No. 1564 & 3084/Mum/2019 J. K. Trust Bombay Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC): [2002] 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and qu…

DCIT (E) 2 (1), Mumbai vs. J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 3084/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri NiranjanFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh
Section 12ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(15)

…ples, and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai 21 I.T.A. No. 1564 & 3084/Mum/2019 J. K. Trust Bombay Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC): [2002] 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and qu…

Rajastha Gau Sewa Sangh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 113/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 748/Jp/2015 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 (U/S 254/12Aa(1)(B)Of I.T. Act 1961) Cuke M/S. Rajasthan Gau Seva Sangh The Cit(Exemptions) Vs. Durgapura, Tonk Road,Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aaatr 0809 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 113/Jp/2014 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cuke M/S. Rajasthan Gau Seva Sangh The Ito Vs. Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur Ward- 6(2),Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aaatr 0809 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca & Shri O.P. Agarwal, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11-09-2015 Of Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Jaipur Passed U/S 12Aa(1)(B) Of The Act As Well As Order Dated 17-12-2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CA and Shri O.P. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(a)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 254

…business principles, and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in Raipur Manufacturing Company (1967) 19 STC 1 (SC) and Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70 (SC); (2002) 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher (1981) STC 238 (sic) are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts.' (Emphasis supplied) 17. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning set out by the Gujarat High Cour…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Animal Breeding Research Organization, (India), Anand

In the result, this tax appeal is dismissed

ITA 2639/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 44ASection 80G(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2639/Ahd/2017 & CO No.07/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) DCIT(Exemption), Vs. Animal Breeding Research Circle – 2, Organization (India), Ahmedabad. Off NDDB Campus, Anand – 388001. [PAN No. AAATA 3919 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Appellant by : Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R. Date of Hearing 04/03/2019 Date of Pronouncement 04/03/2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal f…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Animal Breeding Research Organization, (India), Anand

In the result, this tax appeal is dismissed

ITA 773/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

…business principles, and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in Raipur Manufacturing Company [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and Soi Publication fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC); {2002} 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is tht whether the petitioner-Institute pursues the act…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4326/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4326/Mum/2017, 4327/Mum/2017, 4329/Mum/2017, 4331/Mum/2017, 4332/Mum/2017, 4475/Mum/2017 & 4476/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11,2012–13,2013–14 &, 2014–15) Maharashtra Industrial Development Assistant Commissioner Of Income Corporation Tax (Exemptions) 2(1) Udyog Sarathi, Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Mahakali Caves Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri V. Sridharan & S. Sriram प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit–Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (CIT–DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…harat Development (P) Ltd. V/s CIT[1982] 133 ITR 470198014 Taxman 58 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray V/s ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295/6 Taxman 19 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh V/s H. Abdul Bakhi & Bros [1964] 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat V/s RaiourMfg. Co. [1967] 19 STC 1(SC), Director of Supplies & Disposal V/s. Member, Board of Revenue [1967] 20STC 398(SC) and 17 ITA 4326, 4327, 4329, 4331, 4332, 4475 &4476/Mum/ 2017 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Mrs.Sarojini Rajah V/s CZT[19691 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". Referring to the concept and principle of "economic…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…ples, and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and CST v. Sai Publication Fund [2002] 258 ITR 70 (SC); [2002] 126 STC 288 (SC) can be applied. The six indicia stipulated in Lord Fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. 104 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is that whether the p…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2874/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…rnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the concept and principle of "economic activity" that has gained some acceptability in European Union and England it was explained that the sai…

ADIT(E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Ernet India, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2873/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…rnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the concept and principle of "economic activity" that has gained some acceptability in European Union and England it was explained that the sai…

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. New Delhi Young Men'S Christian Association (Ymca), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4983/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2012-13] The D.C.I.T[E] Vs. New Delhi Young Men’S Circle – 2(1) Christian Association Ltd New Delhi 1, Jai Singh Road, Connaught Place New Delhi Pan : Aaatn 1200 H Co No. 83/Del/2016 (A/O Ita No. 4983/Del/2015 [Assessment Year: 2012-13]) New Delhi Young Men’S Vs. The D.C.I.T[E] Christian Association Ltd Circle – 2(1) 1, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Pan : Aaatn 1200 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

…year for which proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was applied. In this regard the Assessing Officer cited section 13(8) of the Act. Relying upon the decisions in A. Pillai & Sons vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 636, State of Gujarat vs. Raipur Manufacturing Co. (2008) 19 STC 1 (SC) and CIT vs. Bhikamchand Jankila (1981) 232 ITR 554 (MP) the Assessing Officer concluded that the activities of the Association including hostel services, the unrecognized educational courses, Allied Educational and Awareness programmes and the miscellaneous income etc. had characteristics as mentioned in the cited cases and, therefore, the acti…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Ahmedabad vs. Animal Breeding Research Organization, (India), Anand

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2496/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2

…business principles, and pursued with reasonable continuity. There should be facts and other circumstances which justify and show that the activity undertaken is in fact in the nature of business. The test as prescribed in Raipur Manufacturing Company [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) and Soi Publication fund [20Q2] 258 ITR 70 (SC); {2002} 126 STC 288 (SC} can be applied. The six indicia ITA No.2496 /Ahd/2015 with CO 4 stipulated in Lord fisher [1981] STC 238 are also relevant. Each case, therefore, has to be examined on its own facts. In view of the aforesaid enunciation, the real issue and question is tht whether the pet…

M/S. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun vs. CIT, Dehradun

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

ITA 180/DEL/2013[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2017

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh B. Chhibber, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…rnataka [1995] 1 SCC 574, Bharat Development P. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 (Delhi), Barendra Prasad Ray v. ITO [1981] 129 ITR 295 (SC), State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Bros. 15 STC 664 (SC), State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 19 STC 1 (SC), Director of Supplies and Disposal v. Member, Board of Revenue 20 STC 398 (SC) and Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 504 (Mad) to explain the terms "trade, commerce or business". 18. Referring to the concept and principle of "economic activity" that has gained some acceptability in European Union and England it was explained that the sai…