2017 (1) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of any other object of General Public Utility' and last proviso to section 2(15) is clearly applicable to it as 'Income from Sponsorship/ Royalty' is explicitly business receipt in nature. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the addition on account of Life Member's Subscription without discussing any facts in the order. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return showing NIL income accompanied with audit report in Form No. 10B was filed on 13.12.2012. The assessee society is engaged in organizing golf tournaments in India and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lance sheet and not offered to tax. Since the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee in view of Section 13(8), Life Membership Subscription of Rs. 19,05,000/- was also added to the total income of the assessee and AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 46,20,855/- vide his order dated 10.3.2015 u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the order of the Ld. CTI(A). I find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....low exemption u/s. 11 & 12 to the assessee alongwith consequential benefits. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5.1 On going through the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), I find that Ld. CIT(A) has noted that it is seen that in the case of Hamsadhwani Vs. DIT(E) (2012) 19 Taxmann.com 10 ITAT Chennai, the assessee was promoting music in Tamil Nadu for which it was receiving sponsorship and coaching fees and the Hon'ble Tribunal did not accept the argument of DIT(E) that the assessee was involved in any business activity and the exemption was allowed. It was further observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that recently the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. DGIT(E), 5....