Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.26 seconds)Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979
49. During argument, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth
Manufacturers Association (supra) where the assessee was
incorporated under the Companies Act wherein the dominant or the
primary purpose of the assessee was to promote commerce and trade
in art silk yarn, raw silk, cotton yarn, art silk cloth, silk cloth and cotton
cloth as set out in Clause (a) and the object specified in cls. (b) to (e)
and the object was found to be public utility not involving the carrying
on of any activity for profit within the meaning of Section 2(15), the
assessee was held to be entitled for exemption under Section 11(1)(a)
of the Act. However, in the present case there is a profit motive of the
assessee, so it will not help in any manner.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 12AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S.Infoparks vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 October, 2009
38. The Ld. DR submitted that in the case of Greater Cochin
Development Authority, the assessee has sold land to private builders
an others, and rented out commercial space on market rate which are
today the Gateway Residency Hotel, the GCDA Shopping Complex, the
Asoka Tarangini Apartments, the Bay Pride Mall, Kerala Trade Centre
etc. hence, the submission of the assessee that this case law of
Infoparks vs. CIT is not applicable to the facts of the case is not
correct as the ratio of that case law is one of the main activity of
treating the income from property in the nature of trade, commerce
and business.
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Lucknow vs M/S Lucknow Development Authority ... on 16 September, 2013
29. The Ld. AR further relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High
Court in the case of CIT vs. Lucknow Development Authority, Gomti
Nagar (2013) 38 Taxman.com 246 wherein it was held that the where
21 I.T.A. Nos.792&793/Coch/2014
the Trust has carried out its activities on non commercial lines with no
motive to earn profits, for fulfillment of aims and objectives, which are
charitable in nature and in the process earn some profits, the same
would not be hit by proviso to section 2(15) of the Act.
New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 January, 2014
42. The Ld. DR relied on the judgment of the Amritsar Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority vs. CIT
(2010) 124 TTJ 598 (Amritsar).
C.I.T. Bombay vs Bar Council Of Maharashtrabar Council ... on 22 April, 1981
50. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Bar Council of
Maharashtra, 22 CTR (SC) 106 where the prime dominant purpose was
for the advancement of object of public utility, it was held to be
entitled to exemption. The learned Counsel for the assessee, during
38 I.T.A. Nos.792&793/Coch/2014
argument raised a plea that totality of circumstances has to be seen
specially that all money goes with the State Government and not in
private hands, the prices are fixed and the assessee is not a
commercial organization and the predominant activity of the assessee
is to develop infrastructure and contended that rule of consistency has
to be seen. We are of the view that principles of res judicata do not
apply to income- tax proceedings. However, we agree with the learned
Counsel to the extent that equally important is the rule of consistency.
We are of the view that consistency has to be seen in totality of
circumstances which depends upon facts of each case in the light of
primary object and real activities done by the assessee, so these
judicial pronouncements in our humble opinion are not going to help
the assessee. Further, on scrutiny objects; of the assessee-trust, there
was no defined dominant charitable purpose in the trust deed to which
the said objects would serve as ancillary objects and which were
meant to feed the dominant purpose. The trust deed empowered the
authorities of the trust to spend the funds of the trust for the purchase
of immovable property and since no part of the income of the trust
was applied on any specific charitable purposes, the exemption under
Section 11 of the Act was denied. In view of these facts and judicial
pronouncements, we are supposed to see the predominant object of
the assessee. If all the objects and activities actually carried out by the
39 I.T.A. Nos.792&793/Coch/2014
assessee are analysed and kept in juxtaposition with the various
judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that activities of the
assessee are more of commercial nature with profit-oriented intent, so
no leniency should be shown to the assessee.