TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. 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 held to be for the purposes of business and trade. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 of dominant object has not been altered even after the said amendment. W....