2024 (9) TMI 212

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the DCIT (E), Circle 1(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:- "1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that activities of assessee has hit by proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Income Tax Act and in not setting aside the matter to the file of AO to adjudicate it afresh in light of the ratio laid down in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ACIT (E) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority as provided for in the Supreme Court order dated 19.10.2022. 2. the appellant craves leave to add, alter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment with various sponsors should not be treated as business venture to which the assessee had replied that it is operating on non-profit motive basis and the sports activities cannot be considered to be the business activity. It was submitted that the arrangements of entering into sponsorship was done only to partly recover the expenses incurred for participation in Rio Olympics 2016. However, the AO examined the Memorandum of Association and the kinds of receipts and concluded that the activities of the assessee do not fall under the limbs of amended proviso to section 2(15) and has to be considered falling in the category of advancement of general public utility. The AO observed that the activities are commercial in nature and accordingl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there is apparent error in the perception of comparing the activities of BCCI and that of the present assessee. The working model of BCCI cannot at all be equated with the present assessee which is representing the country under the aegis of the Government in amateur international sports events. The CIT(A) has specifically observed on facts of the case that in regard to participation in Rio Olympics games in 2016 the expenditure incurred is more than the sponsorship amounts received. The sponsorship agreements are not long-term contracts and there was no bidding process. Thus, we are of the considered view that arranging these sponsorship contracts is in itself a great task for the assessee as the sponsors are paying out of their profits fo....