Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
Council Of Architecture,New Delhi vs Ito (Exemption), Ward-1(3) , New Delhi on 13 August, 2025
cites
Section 11 in The Architects Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs The Calcutta Stock Exchange ... on 26 March, 1959
a. CIT Vs. The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association ltd reported in 36
ITR 222 (Cal)
b. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Vs. CIT reported in 41 ITR 495
(Del)
c CIT Vs. United Club reported 161 ITR 853(Pat)
Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 30 November, 1960
a. CIT Vs. The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association ltd reported in 36
ITR 222 (Cal)
b. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Vs. CIT reported in 41 ITR 495
(Del)
c CIT Vs. United Club reported 161 ITR 853(Pat)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Divine Light Mission on 21 April, 2004
8. In all these aforesaid cases, the entrance fee/ one-time membership
fee received from the new members were treated as revenue receipt. The
ld DR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High
Court in the case of CIT vs Divine Light Mission reported in 278 ITR 659
(Del), wherein it was held that voluntary donation received by the trust
was treated as revenue receipt.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs W.I.A.A. Club Ltd. on 31 January, 1979
The ld AR placed reliance on the decision
of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. W.I.A.A. Club
Limited reported in 136 ITR 569 (Bom), wherein the life time membership
fee received by the club was treated as capital receipt, being receipt of
enduring nature.
C.I.T Central-Iii vs M/S Excel Industries Ltd on 8 October, 2013
The decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the
case of Excel Industries (supra) on the aspect of timing difference and
consequently there should not be any addition, applies to the facts of the
instant case before us. Accordingly, we hold that the action of the revenue
in treating the one time life membership fee received from the architects
as a revenue receipt is not acceptable. The ld AO is hereby directed to
ignore the said sum of ₹1,56,45,000/- while computing the application of
income for charitable purposes and while computing the exemption u/s 11
of the Act. The ld AO is hereby directed to compute accordingly and
grounds raised by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 on merits are
allowed and sustenance of reopening are dismissed as not pressed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs United Club on 28 September, 1985
a. CIT Vs. The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association ltd reported in 36
ITR 222 (Cal)
b. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Vs. CIT reported in 41 ITR 495
(Del)
c CIT Vs. United Club reported 161 ITR 853(Pat)
Section 13 in The Architects Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Architects Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
1