2021 (12) TMI 1499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 26.12.2016 & 18.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2014-15 & 2017-18. 2. Since the facts in issues relate to the common grievance, both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. In those matters, lower authorities have held that assessee's activities are commercial in nature. ITA No. 297/Ind/2020-A.Y. 2014-15 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee read as under: "1. The ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i govt. departments/institutions such as MANIT, NHDC Limited, Bhaskar foundation etc. b) Consultancy receipts from Department of Technical Education for development of MIS Software application c) TCPC Job Work receipts from different organizations d) Registration and Annual subscription fees e) Consultancy receipts from CRISP online services" 3.2 It is seen from the activities of the assessee and the income and expenditure account itself that most of the receipts are from providing consultancy services to various government, semi-government and private organizations. Apart from the consultancy services, the assessee has also carried out job work for different institutions which is reflected from the in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) of the Act. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,50,21,153/-. 4. Thereafter, the assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have gone through the relevant records and impugned order. The learned AR argued that its activities are non-commercial and wrongly denied benefit of Section 11 of the Act. The learned AR relied upon on following cases: i. DIT(E) vs. National Safety Council 305 ITR 257 (Bom), ii. Saurashtra Education Foundation vs. CIT 273 ITR 139, iii. Harnam Singh Harbans Kaur vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi [2012] 17 taxmann.com 103 (Delhi Tribunal), iv. CIT(A) vs. Gujarat Maritime Board: 2007 14 SCC 704, v.....