Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Dcit (Exemption), New Delhi vs Society For Indian Automobile ... on 30 April, 2020

Credia - Pune Metro,, vs Income-Tax Officer,, on 3 September, 2020

10. Further, on identical facts, in the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra.), the facts were that the assessee society was set up with object of promoting growth of automobile industry in India and also to improve and protect environment and was registered u/s.12A of the Act. During the relevant assessment year there was income from seminars and conferences, providing statistical information and Auto Expo. The Assessing Officer denied benefit of section 11/12 to assessee on ground that in view of amended provisions of section 2(15) receipts from seminars, statistical information and auto Expo 2008 were not charitable activities. Activities of the assessee in organizing seminars, conferences and Auto Expo and publications in relation to automobile industry were performed with prior object of promotion of growth of automobile industry in India which is an object of general public utility and therefore, proviso to section 2(15) would not apply. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Rajasthan Cricket Association, ... vs Add.Cit. Range-2, Jaipur on 25 November, 2020

proviso to section 2(15) and if the object of the activity is to promote the objects for which it was set up, then it will not be caught within the sweep of the proviso notwithstanding the fact that there results some income from carrying out such activity. The core of the matter is to see whether the activity which resulted into some income or loss was carried on with the object of doing some trade, commerce or business, etc., or it was in furtherance of the objects (non-business) etc., for which the assessee was set up. In other words, the predominant object of the activities should be seen as to whether it is aimed at carrying on some business, trade or commerce or the furtherance of the object for which it was set up. If it falls in the first category, then, the case would be covered within the proviso to section 2(15) and, in the otherwise scenario, the assessee will be construed to have carried on its activities of general public utility. (see Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures v. ITO [2016] 71 taxmann.com 138/159 ITD 659 (Delhi - Trib.)"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 76 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. on 21 September, 2020

The crux of the matter is to understand the object of carrying on the activity which resulted into income. If the object is to simply earn income de hors the promotion of objects for which it was set up, it will fall within the ambit of proviso to section 2(15) and if the object of the activity is to promote the objects for which it was set up, then it will not be caught within the sweep of the proviso notwithstanding the fact that there results some income from carrying out such activity. The core of the matter is to see whether the activity which resulted into some income or loss was carried on with the object of doing some trade, commerce or business, etc., or it was in furtherance of the objects (non-business) etc., for which the assessee was set up. In other words, the predominant object of the activities should be seen as to whether it is aimed at carrying on some business, trade or commerce or the furtherance of the object for which it was set up. If it falls in the first category, then, the case would be covered within the proviso to section 2(15) and, in the otherwise scenario, the assessee will be construed to have carried on its activities of general public utility. (see Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures vs. ITO, Delhi).
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur on 21 June, 2022

The crux of the matter is to understand the object of carrying on the activity which resulted into income. If the object is to simply earn income de hors the promotion of 34 objects for which it was set up, it will fall within the ambit of proviso to section 2(15) and if the object of the activity is to promote the objects for which it was set up, then it will not be caught within the sweep of the proviso notwithstanding the fact that there results some income from carrying out such activity. The core of the matter is to see whether the activity which resulted into some income or loss was carried on with the object of doing some trade, commerce or business, etc., or it was in furtherance of the objects (non-business) etc., for which the assessee was set up. In other words, the predominant object of the activities should be seen as to whether it is aimed at carrying on some business, trade or commerce or the furtherance of the object for which it was set up. If it falls in the first category, then, the case would be covered within the proviso to section 2(15) and, in the otherwise scenario, the assessee will be construed to have carried on its activities of general public utility. (see Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures v. ITO [2016] 71 taxmann.com 138/159 ITD 659 (Delhi - Trib.)"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1