Case LawHigh Court › Mr. Puneet Rai And Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Ad...

Mr. Puneet Rai And Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates v. Railway Sports Promotion Board Through

High Court 12 Jul 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Mr. Puneet Rai And Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates v. Railway Sports Promotion Board Through
Date of order
12 Jul 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Mr. Puneet Rai And Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates v. Railway Sports Promotion Board Through, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: No substantial question of law arises for consideration of the Court 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

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 614/2019 –THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai and Mr. Ruchir Mr. Puneet Rai and Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocates. versus RAILWAY SPORTS PROMOTION BOARD Through ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH O R D E R% 12.07.2019 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order dated 30[th]November, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 4833/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2006-07. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’] which held that the objects and activities of the Assessee were to promote sports persons in the Ministry of Railways and participation in sports events outside India is not covered under Section 11 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). In the circumstances, it was held that the expenditure was applied for the purposes of outside India and accordingly the deletion as ordered by the CIT (A) except Rs. 6,68,300/- was upheld. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue and having examined the impugned order of the ITAT, the Court is of the view that it suffers from no legal infirmity. 4. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of the Court the Appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. JULY 12, 2019 amit TALWANT SINGH, 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