TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs would not ipso facto lead to denial of exemption. The dominant object of the assessee remains charitable and the aforesaid activities are only incidental to the main activity of the assessee. Also, the activities of the assessee are benefiting the public at large at submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Furthermore, it is not the case of the department that any change in objects had ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Mr. Gaurav Khetarpal, Advs. for appellant. Mr. Mayank Jain with Mr. Parmatma Singh Mr. Madhur Jain, Advs. for respondent. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) 1. Revenue is in appeal in these two proceedings against two orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 by which the amounts received by the assessee and utilized, were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hops held to inform its members. 3. The AO s order was affirmed by the CIT(A); the assessee therefore approached the ITAT. By the impugned order, the ITAT upheld the assessee s contention after noticing the amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961 made in 2009. The ITAT also took note of several decisions such as Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund (2002) 258 ITR 70 (SC), Addl. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. Furthermore, it is not the case of the department that any change in objects had taken place in the relevant year so as to take the assessee outside the ambit of section 2(15). The effect of the amendment has been discussed elaborately by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in ITPO Case (supra) as well as the judgment of Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce (supra) and the test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
