TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision rendered therein would apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal for assessment year 2014-15, except with variance in figures. ITA No. 6685/Mum/2019 Assessee's Appeal -A.Y. 2013-14 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: "1. The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming order of AO, denying the exemption of Income U/S 11 read with Section 2(15) ignoring the orders of Hon'ble Tribunal for last more than 10 years including that of AY. 2012-13 order dt. 16.05.2018, which were before him and facts of the case remaining same. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Navi Mumbai Merchant Gymkhana order dt. 21.05.2014 which was referred in his order on page 17 was already Ground No. 2 before Hon'ble Tribunal in the order dt. 16.05.2018 of AY. 2012-13. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not allowing set off of Deficits of the current year, earlier years & carried forward of balance amount, (in view of his denial of exemption U/S. 11) however set off of Deficits was allowed to the Appellant by Hon'ble High Court in their order dt. 03.12.2018 in the case of Appellant." 4. The issue arising in grounds no. 1 and 2, raised in assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....003-04, which is much prior to the amendment brought in the statute to curb such linkage of taxable income gained by trust on account of commercial exploitation of properties. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the exemption claimed under section 11 of the Act in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 6. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide common impugned order dated 26/08/2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the conclusion reached by the AO. The learned CIT(A) held that the assessee earns revenue from activities, which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and therefore proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is applicable to the assessee's case. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative ('learned AR') submitted that this issue has already been decided in favour of assessee in preceding assessment years. The learned AR further submitted that non-sport activities were undertaken by the assessee in the course of its main objective and the revenue from non-sport activities is less than 20% of the total receipt and therefore both the conditions of proviso to section 2(15) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any services in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity; Provided further that the first proviso shall not apply if the aggregate value of the receipts from the activities referred to therein is twenty-five lakh rupees or less in the previous year" 11. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid provisos were incorporated in the Act w.e.f. 01/04/2009, and the term 'object of general public utility' was further qualified by few more conditions. During the course of hearing, learned AR referred to the two conditions, i.e. (i) such activities undertaken in the course of actual carrying out of such advancement of any other object of general public utility; and (ii) aggregate received from such activity does not exceed 25% of the total receipts, and submitted that assessee satisfy both the conditions and therefore the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable to the case of the assessee. We find that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09/2015, wherein similar claim of assessee was allowed by dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) for allowing assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 r.w.s. 2(15) of the I.T. Act." 13. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that the details of income earned by the assessee in assessment year 2011-12 are neither mentioned in the aforesaid order nor available on record. We further find that the coordinate bench of Tribunal in another decision in assessee's own case in DCIT vs Goregaon Sports Club, in ITA No. 7033/Mum/2016, for assessment year 2012-13, vide order dated 16/05/2018 by referring to the aforesaid two decisions, directed the AO to allow benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act to the assessee. Even in this decision, only reference is made to the incomes from hiring and royalty earned by the assessee, without further details. 14. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the object of the assessee club, as noted above from the Memorandum of Association. Only basis on which exemption under section 11 of the Act has been denie....