← All Phrases

“proviso to section 2(15)”

Charitable TrustsSection 2(15)Section 2(15)581 judgments

The decision most relied on for proviso to section 2(15) is ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278), cited in 390 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on proviso to section 2(15)

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
390
citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)
371 ITR 333 · 2015 · High Court
128
citing judgments

An institution engaged in the advancement of general public utility retains its charitable character and eligibility for exemptions under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) provided profit is not its predominant motive, even if it generates incidental surpluses or collects fees.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
10 SCC 304 · 1996 · Reported
123
citing judgments

A 'trade' is primarily defined as the exchange of goods for goods or money, and secondarily as a business carried on with a view to profit. The term 'business' is more comprehensive than 'trade', encompassing manufacturing activities.

362 ITR 539 (Gujarat) (d) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT
347 ITR 99 · 2012 · High Court
112
citing judgments

The broad definition of 'business' should not be applied when interpreting the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the object and purpose of the section must be considered.

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT
396 ITR 323 · 2017 · High Court
108
citing judgments

Development authorities can continue to be regarded as existing for a 'Charitable Purpose' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, even after the introduction of the proviso to that section. The contention that such authorities automatically lose their charitable status due to the proviso is incorrect.

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) v. DGIT (Exemptions)
358 ITR 91 · 2013 · High Court
80
citing judgments

An institution carrying out charitable objects, such as education or advancement of general public utility, does not lose its Section 11 exemption merely by collecting fees for activities like campus placements or educational guidance, as this does not constitute carrying on a business.

DIT v. Sabarmati Gaushala Trust
362 ITR 539 · 2014 · High Court
63
citing judgments

Activities of a trust established for the advancement of general public utility do not constitute a 'business' activity if undertaken without private motive, thus qualifying for exemption under Section 11 read with Section 2(15), even when charging fees or receiving consideration.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund
258 ITR 70 · 2002 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

If a charitable organization's dominant activity is not business, then any incidental or ancillary activity performed to achieve its main object will also not be considered 'business,' even if it generates income, provided the primary activity is not driven by a profit intent.

Judgments citing proviso to section 2(15)

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2045/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod, A/RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D/R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(iia)

been dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. (ii) the appellant trust has no profit motive and to fall within proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, rendering of service to trade, commerce or business must be such that it is in the course of carrying

Incometax Officer, Exemption- Ward-2, Chennai. vs. Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 700/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 699 & 700/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer Tamilnadu Advocate Welfare V. (Exemptions), Fund, High Court Campus, Ward-3, High Court, Chennai. Chennai – 600 104. [Pan: Aaatt-6317-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 6(2)

Assessing Officer on 23.03.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, by denying the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act for the reason that the assessee has involved in the nature of trade or business by selling the welfare funds ... sale of welfare fund stamps to the members as well as general public that overriding the profit motive is inconsonance with first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.1.53 crores in the form

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Tamil Nadu Advocate Welfare Fund, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 699/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 699 & 700/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer Tamilnadu Advocate Welfare V. (Exemptions), Fund, High Court Campus, Ward-3, High Court, Chennai. Chennai – 600 104. [Pan: Aaatt-6317-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 6(2)

Assessing Officer on 23.03.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, by denying the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act for the reason that the assessee has involved in the nature of trade or business by selling the welfare funds ... sale of welfare fund stamps to the members as well as general public that overriding the profit motive is inconsonance with first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.1.53 crores in the form

Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welafare Fund, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 1034/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavcanara Bank Golden Jubilee The Commissioner Of Income- Staff Welfare Fund Tax (Exemption) Vs. No.14 Naveen Complex Bangalore. M.G.Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaatc1435H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sri.C.Ramesh, Ca Respondent By: Sri.D.K.Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2024 Pronouncement: 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm : The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of The Learned Cit(Exemption), Bangalore Dated 27Th March, 2024 Having Din & Order No.Itba/Exm/F/Exn45/2023-24/ 1063440703(1).

For Appellant: Sri.C.Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Sri.D.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)

large and hence the assessee cannot be said to be a society engaged in charitable activities. The ld.CIT(E) referred to the proviso of section 2(15) of the Act and held that the assessee is not engaged in advancement of the object of general public utility. 4. Aggrieved with ... large is entitled for the registration of 12AB. Reliance can be placed on the following judgments and the restrictions imposed in proviso to section 2(15) would come into play only when the society is carrying out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. A reference

Advertising Agencies Association of India, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

been considered and decided in favour of the Assessee by holding that the activity of Goa fest is not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) and is not in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity ancillary or related thereto [Ref. Order

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3270/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as the assessee is engaged in the advancement of any other object of general public utility and there is no provision ... proviso and provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T. Act, under which no exemption u/s 11 is admissible once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted". 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right, despite the fact that

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3265/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as the assessee is engaged in the advancement of any other object of general public utility and there is no provision ... proviso and provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T. Act, under which no exemption u/s 11 is admissible once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted". 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right, despite the fact that

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3247/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as the assessee is engaged in the advancement of any other object of general public utility and there is no provision ... proviso and provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T. Act, under which no exemption u/s 11 is admissible once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted". 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right, despite the fact that

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption)- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3246/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as the assessee is engaged in the advancement of any other object of general public utility and there is no provision ... proviso and provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T. Act, under which no exemption u/s 11 is admissible once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted". 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right, despite the fact that

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3245/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as the assessee is engaged in the advancement of any other object of general public utility and there is no provision ... proviso and provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T. Act, under which no exemption u/s 11 is admissible once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted". 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right, despite the fact that

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

ITA 3244/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor DhuleFor Respondent: Shri Y.P.Trivedi
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as the assessee is engaged in the advancement of any other object of general public utility and there is no provision ... proviso and provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T. Act, under which no exemption u/s 11 is admissible once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted". 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right, despite the fact that

Income Tax Officer Exemption-2(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

ITA 4375/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta, Paresh TapariaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(15)(proviso)

other object of general public utility" and the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee as spelt out clearly in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ? 3 ITA.Nos ... interest earned when the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee as spelt out clearly in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

ITO(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

ITA 4374/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta, Paresh TapariaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(15)(proviso)

other object of general public utility" and the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee as spelt out clearly in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ? 3 ITA.Nos ... interest earned when the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee as spelt out clearly in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

ITO(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

ITA 4373/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta, Paresh TapariaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(15)(proviso)

other object of general public utility" and the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee as spelt out clearly in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ? 3 ITA.Nos ... interest earned when the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee as spelt out clearly in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

ITO(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Matunga Gymkhana, Mumbai

ITA 4372/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta, Paresh TapariaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 2(15)(proviso)

other object of general public utility" and the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee as spelt out clearly in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ? 3 ITA.Nos ... interest earned when the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee as spelt out clearly in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Society for Applied Microwave Electronic Engineering and Research (Sameer), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes”

ITA 3363/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh & Deputy Commissioner Vs. Society For Applied Microwave Electronic Of Income Tax Engineering & (Exemption)-2(1), Research (Sameer) 6Th Floor, Iit Campus, Mtnl Telephone Hill Side,Powai, Exchange Building, Mumbai-400076. Dr.Gd Deshmukhmarg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Hill, Mumbai -400026. Pan/Gir No.Aalas5825K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 11Section 2(15)

than Rs. 25 Lakhs and hence the exemption u/s 11 shall not be granted to it as per the provisions of the proviso to section 2(15) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not acknowledging the fact that the issue ... maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

M/S Innovtive Microfinance for Poverty Alleviation, Chennai vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Chennai Circle, Chennai

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

ITA 164/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO after considering the applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act by observing in paras 6.5 & 6.6 as under:- 6.5 From the plain reading of the above assessment, it is found ... Therefore, registration under 12AA of the Act does not have relevance to enjoy benefit of exemption if its activities are hit by proviso of Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act. In the instant case, above cited case law is squarely applicable. 6.6 The appellant has raised

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 2693/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 2689, 2690, 2691, 2692 & 2693 /Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Jhansi Development Income Tax, Exemption- Authority, Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Commissionery Campus, Pradesh Jhansi Railway Station S.O. Jhansi - Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaalj 0068 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

sale of immovable properties, the receipts from which are in excess of Rs.25 lakh being the ceiling stipulated in the second proviso of Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the activities of the appellant either ITA Nos.2689 to 2693 Del/2023 DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority Asst.Years ... business and if it is found so than it must be examined whether the quantified limit as amended time to time in proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act has been breached or not. In that view of the ITA Nos.2689 to 2693 Del/2023 DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 2692/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 2689, 2690, 2691, 2692 & 2693 /Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Jhansi Development Income Tax, Exemption- Authority, Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Commissionery Campus, Pradesh Jhansi Railway Station S.O. Jhansi - Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaalj 0068 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

sale of immovable properties, the receipts from which are in excess of Rs.25 lakh being the ceiling stipulated in the second proviso of Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the activities of the appellant either ITA Nos.2689 to 2693 Del/2023 DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority Asst.Years ... business and if it is found so than it must be examined whether the quantified limit as amended time to time in proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act has been breached or not. In that view of the ITA Nos.2689 to 2693 Del/2023 DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority

DCIT, Exemption, Circle Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Uttarpradesh vs. Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi, Uttarpradesh

ITA 2691/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 2689, 2690, 2691, 2692 & 2693 /Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Jhansi Development Income Tax, Exemption- Authority, Circle, Ghaziabad, Uttar Commissionery Campus, Pradesh Jhansi Railway Station S.O. Jhansi - Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaalj 0068 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)

sale of immovable properties, the receipts from which are in excess of Rs.25 lakh being the ceiling stipulated in the second proviso of Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the activities of the appellant either ITA Nos.2689 to 2693 Del/2023 DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority Asst.Years ... business and if it is found so than it must be examined whether the quantified limit as amended time to time in proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act has been breached or not. In that view of the ITA Nos.2689 to 2693 Del/2023 DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority