Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption v. Society For Participatoryresearch In Asia

$~27 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 845/2016 & CM No. 43732/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ..... AppellantThrough: Mr. P. Roychoudhuri, Adv. versus SOCIETY FOR PARTICIPATORYRESEARCH IN ASIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. RohitJain and Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R % 25.11.2016 The standard question of law sought to be urged is whetherhaving regard to the facts of the case the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT) acted in accordance with law in holding that theproviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was notattracted so as to deny the benefit of Section 11 of the Act. The assessee was a recipient of research and training grant andother income to the tune of Rs. 1.36 crores. The Assessing Officer(AO) determined that the latter were commercial receipts and guidedby proviso to Section 2(15) and held that the assessee could not availthe benefit under Section 11(23) of the Act. The ITAT relied uponthe judgment in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vsDirector General of Income Tax (2015) 371 ITR 333 which hadobserved that that as long as the predominant activity of an institution is not business or commerce, and that the so called suspect income isderived on the basis of some subsidiary or incidental activity, theexemption cannot be denied. This court notices that the reasoning in India Trade PromotionOrganisation (supra) has been affirmed and applied in several otherjudgments, therefore, no question of law arises. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 25, 2016/kk NAJMI WAZIRI, J