Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.19 seconds)Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
M.I.G. Cricket Club, Mumbai vs Dit (E), Mumbai on 18 April, 2017
The submission of ld. DR that activities of the Trust is
not genuine because it is hit by proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, is in
fact negatived by this Circular. The Circular clearly provides that mere
receipt on account of business receipt in excess of limit in the proviso
would not result in cancellation of registration granted under section 12AA,
unless there is change in the nature of activities of the assessee. The ld.
DIT(E) has not given any finding as to whether there is change in the
nature of activities of the assessee during the relevant Assessment Year,
except placing reliance on the proposal of ADIT(E). The ratio of decision
relied by ld. DR in case of MIG Cricket Club vs. DIT(E) (supra) are not
applicable on the fact of the present case.
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Bhakti Kala Kshetra, Mumbai vs Dit (E), Mumbai on 8 February, 2017
The co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Bhakti Kala
Kshetra vs. DIT(E), Mumbai (supra) held that even if assessee trust was hit
by monetary limits contemplated under section 2(15) with effect from
1.4.2009, same would only adversely affect entitlement of assessee towards
claim of exemption under section 11; however, same could not lead to
cancellation/withdrawal of registration granted under section 12A/12AA.
Tamil Nadu Tennis Association, Chennai vs Dcit(E), Chennai on 18 January, 2018
6. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Tamil Nadu Cricket
Association vs. DIT(E) (supra) held that where Commissioner after
satisfying himself about genuineness of objects of assessee, a cricket
association, granted registration to it under section 12AA on 28-3-2003 and
later on 19-7-2011 he having noticed that assessee was receiving income
from holding of cricket matches cancelled registration, since objects
remained as they were in year 2003, cancellation of registration was not
justified.
Improvement Trust vs Cit on 27 October, 2006
In support of its submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon
the CBDT Circular No. 21/2016 dated 27.05.2016, decision of
jurisdictional High Court in DIT(E) vs. M/s. Khar Gymkhana ITA No.
2349 of 2013 dated 06.06.2016, Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Cricket
4
ITA No. 363/Mum/2012- M/s Mumbai Port Trust
Association vs. DIT(E) [2013] taxmann.com 250 (Madras), decision of
Mumbai Tribunal in Bhakti Kala Kshetra vs. DIT(E) [2017] 79
taxmann.com 66 and Amritsar Tribunal in Kapurthala Improvement Trust
vs. CIT in ITA No. 732(Asr) of 2013. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the
Revenue supported the order of ld. DIT(E). It was further submitted that
the activities carried out by assessee trust within the nature of trade and
commerce. The assessee's receipt from Cargo Handling and the Storage
Charges is Rs. 446.21 Crore, Rs. 278.99 Crore from Prot & Dockyard
Charges, Rs. 10.36 Crore from Railway such as Freight and Haulge, Siding
Charges, Terminal Charges and Rs. 73.19 Crore as Rental of Estate. The
assessee is exploiting its property commercially and in a systematic manner
regularly. The assessee is directly hit by the proviso of section 2(15) of the
Act.