TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10-11 ("AY"). 2. The Appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in ignoring the fact that due to insertion of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act the object/activity need not be business itself but may be in nature of business, trade or commerce which is sufficient for disqualification. Further, that rendering any services in relation to trade, commerce or business from whom consideration is in lieu of services received is sufficient for disqualification. In the present case, the assessee was providing various infrastructure facilities and deriving income from principal activities and was charging interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 to 13 of the Act, and specifically the restrictive provisions of section 13, cannot be made applicable to the case of public enterprises /public sector undertakings/ public sector utility service provider; and (iv) the absence of profit motive in the functioning of the Respondent does not by itself create a situation of total exemption from charge of income tax. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer in his order under section 143(3) dated 04.03.2013 denied the exemption under section 11 claimed in full and subjected the entire income of the Respondent to tax ("the Original Assessment Order"). c. Being aggrieved, the Respondent Assessee approached the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 14.04.2013. d. Pending di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Tribunal has erred in following its order for AY 2009-10 dated 30.10.2015 inasmuch as in the year under consideration the appeal filed by the Respondent before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was pending adjudication and therefore there was no merger of the Assessment Order with an Appellate Order. He further submitted that it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to have invoked the proviso to section 2(15) as was done in the subsequent AY 2011-12. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that even if the proviso to section 2(15) was held against the Respondent, it can at the highest result in denial of the exemption under section 11, which in any event had already been done to the fulle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Tribunal. In other words, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that even assuming this Hon'ble Court were to allow the appeal filed, all that it would mean is that the Assessing Officer ought to pass a fresh Assessment Order after taking into consideration the proviso to section 2(15), which in any case has been directed by the Tribunal dated 28.09.2022. Hence, the issues raised in the present Appeal have been rendered academic, was the submission. 9. We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the operative portion of the Order of the Tribunal dated 28.09.2022 tendered by the Respondent, which reads as under: "16. Since, various aspects pertaining to section 2(15) of the Act have been remanded to the AO ....