Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tax Exemption Denied: Charitable Status Disputed</h1> <h3>M Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai City - III</h3> M Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai City - III - TMI Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Nature of certain clauses in the Memorandum of Association.3. Classification of construction activities as business.4. Establishing of World Trade Center as an object of public utility.5. Applicability of section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.6. Classification of transactions as sale or lease.7. Assessment of primary basic rent and parking rent as business income.8. Nature of the sinking fund as revenue receipt.9. Adoption of standard rent fixed by Municipal Authorities for annual value.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 11:The court held that compliance with section 12A is not the only requirement for the applicability of section 11. The property must be held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, and the income must be applied to such purposes. The assessee failed to prove that its activities were for charitable purposes, as it did not engage in any scientific research or apply its income towards such purposes. The court concluded that the assessee's claim for exemption under section 11(1)(a) failed as it did not hold the property under trust wholly for charitable purposes and did not apply the income to such purposes.2. Nature of Certain Clauses in the Memorandum of Association:The court examined the clauses in the Memorandum of Association and found that the assessee's activities did not align with its main object of organizing, sponsoring, promoting, establishing, conducting, or undertaking scientific research. The court noted that the incidental or ancillary objects cannot be the main or dominant purposes unconnected with or unrelated to the charitable purpose.3. Classification of Construction Activities as Business:The court held that the construction activities of the World Trade Center, Centre 1, and IDBI Centre were activities of business. The income derived from these activities was not related to any charitable purposes.4. Establishing of World Trade Center as an Object of Public Utility:The court rejected the claim that the establishment of the World Trade Center was an object of public utility covered by the provisions of section 11. The assessee did not engage in any activities connected to its main object of scientific research, and its income was derived from business activities unrelated to charitable purposes.5. Applicability of Section 11(4A):The court held that the assessee's business was not carried on wholly for charitable purposes, and therefore, the claim was barred by section 11(4A). The assessee also failed to establish that the work in connection with its business was mainly carried on by the beneficiaries of the institution.6. Classification of Transactions as Sale or Lease:The court analyzed the lease agreements and concluded that the 'advance rent' was in fact a premium or salami, and not rent paid in advance. The court held that the transactions were leases and not sales, and the entire 'advance rent' was taxable in the year of receipt.7. Assessment of Primary Basic Rent and Parking Rent as Business Income:The court affirmed that the primary basic rent and the parking rent were assessable as income from profits and gains of business or profession. The court noted that the nature of income was not in dispute, only the quantum that was liable to be brought to tax.8. Nature of the Sinking Fund as Revenue Receipt:The court held that the amount appropriated towards a sinking fund was part of the rent received by the assessee and was in the nature of revenue receipt. The court rejected the claim that the contributions to the sinking fund constituted a diversion of income by overriding title.9. Adoption of Standard Rent Fixed by Municipal Authorities for Annual Value:The court found this question to be academic in light of the Tribunal's remand report, which held that the income from the transactions was to be assessed under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession.' Therefore, the issue of adopting the standard rent fixed by Municipal Authorities did not survive.Final Judgment:1. Question 1 is answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.2. Questions 2 to 5 were not pressed by the assessee and are returned unanswered.3. Question 6 is answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.4. Question 7 is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.5. Question 8 is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.6. The additional question for the assessment year 1990-91 is answered in the negative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found