Section 2(15) — 1,405 case laws

Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 279/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sriram V. Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel V., D.R

fresh opportunities of being heard. 4. As regards denying exemption under section 11 of the IT Act by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act: 4.1 The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that the objectives of the appellant do not involve carrying on any activity ... business. 4.2 The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate that the Appellant does not fall within the mischief of 1 st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act for the reason that the Appellant is established under Karnataka Rajya Nirmana Kendra which is an agency of the Department

Gemmological Inistitute of India, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3785/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 43Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “G” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM

Gemmological Inistitute of India, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3784/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 43Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “G” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM

Golden Charitable Trust, Sangli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.933/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :- Golden Charitable Trust, The Cit Exemption, 2349, Guruwar Peth, Miraj, V Pune. Maharashtra – 416410. S Pan: Aactg0998H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed On 30.06.2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Cit (Exemption) Has Erred In Fact & In Law In Rejecting The Application For The Registration Of The Trust U/S. 12A(1) (Ac) Despite The Fact That Appellant Trust Is Engaged In Pursuing Purely Charitable Objects Such As Providing Medical & Educational Aid To Needy Beneficiaries & The Trust Activities Are Genuine & There Is No Contrary Finding To It. Thus The Rejection Order Is Patently Illegal & Golden Charitable Trust [A]

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 80G

even if it for low-income groups, is a business activity. Therefore, such activity cannot be considered as “Charitable Purpose” as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. Though assessee has claimed that assessee has not carried out such activities, but admittedly one of the objects of the assessee ... reading the objects of the Trust Deed, it is observed that the Objects of the Trust fall in the last limb of the Section 2(15) which is General Public Utility(GPU). 7.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of ACIT(Exemption) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development

The Institute of India Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1230/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Institute of Indian Foundrymen AO has treated that the activities of the trust as commercial activity by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act thereby the denying of exemption u/s11 of the Act. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee ... interest earned on the deposits along with other income was applied for general public utility. The Ld. A.R submitted that the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act states that charitable purpose of relief to poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment, preservation of monuments or places or object

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1229/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Institute of Indian Foundrymen AO has treated that the activities of the trust as commercial activity by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act thereby the denying of exemption u/s11 of the Act. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee ... interest earned on the deposits along with other income was applied for general public utility. The Ld. A.R submitted that the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act states that charitable purpose of relief to poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment, preservation of monuments or places or object

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1228/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Institute of Indian Foundrymen AO has treated that the activities of the trust as commercial activity by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act thereby the denying of exemption u/s11 of the Act. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee ... interest earned on the deposits along with other income was applied for general public utility. The Ld. A.R submitted that the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act states that charitable purpose of relief to poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment, preservation of monuments or places or object

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Software Technology Park of India, New Delhi

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

ITA 2516/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Software Technology Parks Vs. Dcit Of India, Circle-31(1) 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. New Delhi. Opposite Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Dcit (E) Vs. M/S. Software Technology Circle-2(1) Parks Of India, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001 Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that assessee's activities fall under the last limb of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act as assessee is generating income from commercial activities. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... general public utility. The activity though related to the trade and commerce of the assessee cannot be taken under the proviso to the section 2(15) defining the charitable activities. 14. During the appellate proceedings, it was explained by the assessee that the STPI scheme has been notified

M/S Software Technology Parks of India., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2415/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Software Technology Parks Vs. Dcit Of India, Circle-31(1) 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. New Delhi. Opposite Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Dcit (E) Vs. M/S. Software Technology Circle-2(1) Parks Of India, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001 Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that assessee's activities fall under the last limb of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act as assessee is generating income from commercial activities. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... general public utility. The activity though related to the trade and commerce of the assessee cannot be taken under the proviso to the section 2(15) defining the charitable activities. 14. During the appellate proceedings, it was explained by the assessee that the STPI scheme has been notified

M/S. Birmani Charitable Foundation, Nashik vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 113/PUN/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.113/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. M/S.Birmani Charitable The Commissioner Of Foundation, V Income Tax(Exemption), H 227, Deepak Mahal, Lam S Pune. Road, Deolali Camp, Dist.Nashik – 422401. Pan: Aaicb8213B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Dated 03.11.2023 Passed Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Rejecting The Assessee’S Application Filed In Form No.10Ab For Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : M/S.Birmani Charitable Foundation [A]

Section 10Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

Association [1980] 121 ITR l/[1980] 2 Taxman 501, where the speech made by the Finance Minister, while introducing the exclusionary clause in section 2(15) of the Act, was relied upon by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining what was the reason for introducing that clause.” 8 M/s.Birmani

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

finding of the lower authorities that predominant activity of the assessee was not charity. 12. Coming to the application of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, said Section is reproduced hereunder:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement ... organization which was pursuing an activity of general public utility, different from education, medical relief or relief to the poor. First proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is attracted only where an assessee carries on activities which was of general public utility other than those mentioned specifically

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1637/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

finding of the lower authorities that predominant activity of the assessee was not charity. 12. Coming to the application of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, said Section is reproduced hereunder:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement ... organization which was pursuing an activity of general public utility, different from education, medical relief or relief to the poor. First proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is attracted only where an assessee carries on activities which was of general public utility other than those mentioned specifically

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1636/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

finding of the lower authorities that predominant activity of the assessee was not charity. 12. Coming to the application of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, said Section is reproduced hereunder:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement ... organization which was pursuing an activity of general public utility, different from education, medical relief or relief to the poor. First proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is attracted only where an assessee carries on activities which was of general public utility other than those mentioned specifically

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1635/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

finding of the lower authorities that predominant activity of the assessee was not charity. 12. Coming to the application of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, said Section is reproduced hereunder:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement ... organization which was pursuing an activity of general public utility, different from education, medical relief or relief to the poor. First proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is attracted only where an assessee carries on activities which was of general public utility other than those mentioned specifically

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1634/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

finding of the lower authorities that predominant activity of the assessee was not charity. 12. Coming to the application of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, said Section is reproduced hereunder:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement ... organization which was pursuing an activity of general public utility, different from education, medical relief or relief to the poor. First proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is attracted only where an assessee carries on activities which was of general public utility other than those mentioned specifically

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1633/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

finding of the lower authorities that predominant activity of the assessee was not charity. 12. Coming to the application of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, said Section is reproduced hereunder:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement ... organization which was pursuing an activity of general public utility, different from education, medical relief or relief to the poor. First proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is attracted only where an assessee carries on activities which was of general public utility other than those mentioned specifically

M/S. A V M Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

finding of the lower authorities that predominant activity of the assessee was not charity. 12. Coming to the application of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, said Section is reproduced hereunder:- 2(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement ... organization which was pursuing an activity of general public utility, different from education, medical relief or relief to the poor. First proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is attracted only where an assessee carries on activities which was of general public utility other than those mentioned specifically

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. Fragrance and Flavours Association of India, Mumbai

ITA 2973/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2973/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2017-18) Income Tax Officer (E)-1(3), Mumbai Room No.619, Mtnl Telephone Exchange Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Fragrance & Flavours Association Of India, 2-B, Court Chambers, 25, Sir Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan: Aaaaf-0029-K ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ankush Kapoor, Cit Dr. "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Sathe सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04/07/2023, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

public at large, therefore these objects are not covered within the ambit of charitable purpose as defined under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing ... assessee, ignoring the fact that once the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, its objects are no more charitable objects then such activities cannot be treated as income derived from property held for charitable purposes and therefore such income is also not exempt

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

From AY 2003-04 to 2008-09, total income of the assessee was exempted U/s. 11 of the Act. Consequent to amendment to section 2(15) of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2009-10 onwards admitting its income under the head ‘business income ... From AY 2003-04 to 2008-09, total income of the assessee was exempted U/s. 11 of the Act. Consequent to amendment to section 2(15) of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2009-10 onwards admitting its income under the head ‘business income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

From AY 2003-04 to 2008-09, total income of the assessee was exempted U/s. 11 of the Act. Consequent to amendment to section 2(15) of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2009-10 onwards admitting its income under the head ‘business income ... From AY 2003-04 to 2008-09, total income of the assessee was exempted U/s. 11 of the Act. Consequent to amendment to section 2(15) of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2009-10 onwards admitting its income under the head ‘business income

“Section 2(15)”

Leading authorities on Section 2(15)

Judgments citing Section 2(15)

Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Mangalore

Gemmological Inistitute of India, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

Gemmological Inistitute of India, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

Golden Charitable Trust, Sangli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Pune, Pune

The Institute of India Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Software Technology Park of India, New Delhi

M/S Software Technology Parks of India., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Birmani Charitable Foundation, Nashik vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Chennai

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

M/S. A V M Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. Fragrance and Flavours Association of India, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam