Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption v....

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption v. Society For Essential Health Action And Training

High Court 26 Oct 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption v. Society For Essential Health Action And Training
Date of order
26 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption v. Society For Essential Health Action And Training, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Even on merits, the question of law urged by the revenue in this appeal is “whether the expenses sought to be taxed, i.e., the research activities for the development of immunity to the rota virus is of such nature as to take it out of the purview of the protection under Section 2(15) of the Act.

Decision: The application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 737/2016, CM APPL.40108-40109/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus SOCIETY FOR ESSENTIAL HEALTH ACTION AND TRAINING ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA O R D E R% 26.10.2016 -ITA 737/2016, CM APPL.4010840109/2016 (condonation of delay) There is a delay of 747 days. The Court is of the opinion that no reasonable cause has been shown as to qualify the matter to fall within the definition of “sufficient cause”. For the delay of 747 days, the standard ground is confusion brought about by reorganisation of the government panel and the large number of cases pending. In the circumstances, the delay cannot be condoned. Even on merits, the question of law urged by the revenue in this appeal is “whether the expenses sought to be taxed, i.e., the research activities for the development of immunity to the rota virus is of such nature as to take it out of the purview of the protection under Section 2(15) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had disallowed over Rs.40 lakhs - a decision which was mercifully reversed by the CIT (A). The ITAT endorsed that view. We entirely agree with the decision of the ITAT which is based upon the previous ruling in Harnam Singh Harbans Kaur v. Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi, 2011 (12) TMI 232 - ITAT Delhi. Furthermore, the “research” has to be given its widest connotation which would fall within education and knowledge dissemination essential for advancement of human endeavour. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. The application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J OCTOBER 26, 2016 /vikas/ DEEPA SHARMA, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan