← All Phrases

“dominant purpose test”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A48 judgments

The decision most relied on for dominant purpose test is Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi (130 ITR 186), cited in 22 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on dominant purpose test

Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi
130 ITR 186 · 1981 · Supreme Court
22
citing judgments

Activities are not considered to be for profit if their dominant purpose is the promotion, protection, and development of trade, commerce, and industry, even if they involve income-generating activities like conducting trade fairs or collecting fees.

Judgments citing dominant purpose test

The DCIT, 2(1), Indore vs. M/S. Treasure World Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result both the Cross Appeals are dismissed

ITA 439/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Treasure World Acit 4(1), बनाम/ Developers Pvt. Ltd, Indore Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit 4(1), M/S. Treasure World बनाम/ Indore Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 14ASection 178

income or not. 34) Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have

M/S. Treasure World Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 2(1), Indore

In the result both the Cross Appeals are dismissed

ITA 398/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Treasure World Acit 4(1), बनाम/ Developers Pvt. Ltd, Indore Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit 4(1), M/S. Treasure World बनाम/ Indore Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Through Office Of The Official Liquidator, High Court Of Bombay, Bank Of India Building, 5Th Floor, M.G. Road, Indore (Pan: Abopb0352F ) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

Section 14ASection 178

income or not. 34) Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have

Tata Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T., Range-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 3676/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2005-06
For Respondent: Shri P.C Chhottary
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indiabulls Real Estate Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5954/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd, Vs. Dcit, M-62 & 63, First Floor, Central Circle-12(1), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabci5194F

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

When the shares are held by the assessee not to earn exempt income but to retain controlling stake in the investee company, the dominant purpose test cannot be said to be relevant for the purpose of Sec 14A and disallowance u/s 14A can be made. It is not the dominant

Associated Soapstone Distributing Co Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jaipur

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

ITA 243/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37Section 43B

When the shares are held by the assessee not to earn exempt income but to retain controlling stake in the investee company, the dominant purpose test cannot be said to be relevant for the purpose of Sec 14A and disallowance u/s 14A can be made. It is not the dominant

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4278/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBΑΙ BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT, Cir-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bank of India, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed and appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1228/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Bank Of India Acit, Circle 2(1)(1) Room No.575, 5Th Floor, C5 Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb0472C M/S Bank Of India Acit, Circle 2(1)(1) C5 Block Star House, Room No.575, 5Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra East, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr . C Naresh Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Deshmukh Cit Dr & Shri P D Chougule, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 3/7/2023 & 08.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Mr . C Naresh CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Deshmukh CIT DR and Shri P D Chougule, Addl
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 254

Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theory of apportionment

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed and appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Bank Of India Acit, Circle 2(1)(1) Room No.575, 5Th Floor, C5 Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb0472C M/S Bank Of India Acit, Circle 2(1)(1) C5 Block Star House, Room No.575, 5Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra East, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr . C Naresh Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Deshmukh Cit Dr & Shri P D Chougule, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 3/7/2023 & 08.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Mr . C Naresh CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Deshmukh CIT DR and Shri P D Chougule, Addl
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 254

Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theory of apportionment

Fraport Ag Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 287/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Vs. Acit/Adit, Airport Services Worldwide, International Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., Cas, Circle-1(2), 1-D, Vandhna Building, New Delhi 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacf9749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii)

airport management services is a single integrated activity, hence, cannot be bifurcated between PE and the Head Office. He submitted, applying the dominant purpose test, which is to manage the airport, it has to be held that the services are rendered through PE, as, the pith and substance of services

Fraport Ag Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1115/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Vs. Acit/Adit, Airport Services Worldwide, International Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., Cas, Circle-1(2), 1-D, Vandhna Building, New Delhi 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacf9749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii)

airport management services is a single integrated activity, hence, cannot be bifurcated between PE and the Head Office. He submitted, applying the dominant purpose test, which is to manage the airport, it has to be held that the services are rendered through PE, as, the pith and substance of services

Fraport Ag Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3871/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Vs. Acit/Adit, Airport Services Worldwide, International Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., Cas, Circle-1(2), 1-D, Vandhna Building, New Delhi 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacf9749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii)

airport management services is a single integrated activity, hence, cannot be bifurcated between PE and the Head Office. He submitted, applying the dominant purpose test, which is to manage the airport, it has to be held that the services are rendered through PE, as, the pith and substance of services

Fraport Ag Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3870/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Vs. Acit/Adit, Airport Services Worldwide, International Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., Cas, Circle-1(2), 1-D, Vandhna Building, New Delhi 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacf9749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii)

airport management services is a single integrated activity, hence, cannot be bifurcated between PE and the Head Office. He submitted, applying the dominant purpose test, which is to manage the airport, it has to be held that the services are rendered through PE, as, the pith and substance of services

Fraport Ag Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3869/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Vs. Acit/Adit, Airport Services Worldwide, International Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., Cas, Circle-1(2), 1-D, Vandhna Building, New Delhi 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacf9749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii)

airport management services is a single integrated activity, hence, cannot be bifurcated between PE and the Head Office. He submitted, applying the dominant purpose test, which is to manage the airport, it has to be held that the services are rendered through PE, as, the pith and substance of services

Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3257/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Vs. Acit/Adit, Airport Services Worldwide, International Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., Cas, Circle-1(2), 1-D, Vandhna Building, New Delhi 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacf9749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii)

airport management services is a single integrated activity, hence, cannot be bifurcated between PE and the Head Office. He submitted, applying the dominant purpose test, which is to manage the airport, it has to be held that the services are rendered through PE, as, the pith and substance of services

Bimal Roy Soni, J L N Marg vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Jaipur, Statue Circle

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 254

income or not. 34. Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur interpreting Section

Bimal Roy Soni, J L N Marg vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur, N.C.R. Building

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 239/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 254

income or not. 34. Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur interpreting Section

Anthea Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7136/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S. Jana (AR)
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

when the shares are held by the assessee not to earn exempt income but to retain controlling stake in the investee company, the dominant purpose test cannot be said to be relevant for the purpose of Section 14A and disallowance u/s.14A can be made. It is not the dominant purpose

Shree Bankey Bihari Educational Society(Regd), Ghaziabad vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4968/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: ShriAkilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT- DR
Section 11(4)(a)Section 12ASection 80G

whether the fee charged is excessive or what should be the reasonable amount of hostel fee are wholly extraneous to the dominant purpose test. The hostel fee charged would obviously depend upon the facility provided to the students. Having regard to the object and purpose for which the institution

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 5784/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

income or not. 34. Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have