Surat City Gymkhana v. Dy.CIT

254 ITR 733High Court2002#3227 most cited

What is Surat City Gymkhana v. Dy.CIT authority for?

The burden of proof lies on the Assessing Officer (AO) to establish that a trust or charitable institution is hit by the provisions of Section 13. General allegations or mere transactions with interested persons are insufficient unless concrete benefit is proven.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Surat City Gymkhana v. Dy.CIT · Section 13 · charitable trust · onus of proof · Assessing Officer · benefit to interested person · Section 12A · Section 11 · Section 13(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Surat City Gymkhana v. Dy.CIT

The Jt. CIT (Exemptions)(OSD), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Gyanganga Education Society, Rajkot

In the result, the Revenue appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 369/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us That This Similar Issue Is Being Adjudicated By The Very Same Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita Nos. 15 & 16/Rjt/2015 Vide Order Dated 29.06.2022 Relating To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Further This Order Has Been Followed In Ita No. 472, 1170 & 2316/Ahd/2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 By Order Dated 31.08.2022. Now The Present Assessment Year Is 2015-16, Which Is Fully Covered By The Above Orders Of This Tribunal & Copy Of The Orders Are Also Placed On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Desai, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…passed on undue benefits to the related parties in the form of building rent and fees for computer education are not acceptable as they defy economic rationale. It would be worthwhile to refer to the Gujarat High Court judgment in case of Surat City Gymkhana (254 ITR 733) relied upon by the appellant wherein the Jurisdictional High Court held that where the A.O. avers the applicability of provisions of section 13(l)(c), the onus lies on the A.O. to establish the same. In my view, the A.O. has failed on this test as neither in case of building rent nor in case of computer rent, she has referred to even a single ca…