Baroda Cricket Association, Baroda V. The Jt. CIT, Range-5, Baroda

ITA 2957/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6099 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Retrospective amendment; Cost of acquisition; Unabsorbed depreciation; Reassessment proceedings; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 195; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 1 OF 151 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BENCH D , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: JUSTICE P P BHATT, PRESIDENT, AND PRAMOD KU MAR, VICE PRESIDENT] ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/ 13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 40 8/AHD/17 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 201 2-13 GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION .....APPELLA NT 2 ND FLOOR, AKSHAR COMPLEX,OPP MEMNAGAR FIRE STATION NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD 380 005 [PAN: AAAG1205C] VS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD ..........RESPOND ENT ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11 BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION .....APPELLA NT BCA HOUSE, 78 HARI BHAKTI EXTENSION RACE COURSE, VADODARA 390 007 [PAN: AAAAB1410E] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5, VADODARA ..........RESPONDENT ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15 SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION .....APPE LLANT PRSHAM, 7 TH FLOOR NEAR DHARAM CINEMA, RAJKOT [PAN: AAAAS2360J] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- EXEMPTION, CIRCLE 2, AHMEDABAD ..........R ESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY MEHUL PATEL ALONGWITH JAYESH C SHAREDALAL FOR GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION S N SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ALONGWITH BHAVIN MARFATIA AND PARIN SHAH FOR BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION TUSHAR HEMANI ALONGWITH P B PARMAR FOR THE SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION O P VAISHNAV, COMMISSIONER (DR) FOR THE RESPONDENT ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 2 OF 151 DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 4 AND 5, 2018 AND JANUARY 22, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : JANUARY 24, 2019 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: 1. THESE TEN APPEALS ARE FILED BY VARIOUS CRICKET A SSOCIATIONS IN GUJARAT, ASSAIL STAND OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES ON A NEATLY IDENTIFIED CENTRAL ISSUE AND WERE HEARD TOGETHER. HAVING REGARD TO FAIR DEGREE OF COMMONAL ITY OF CORE FACTS, CENTRAL ISSUE IN APPEAL AND THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS, IT IS ONLY APPROPRI ATE THAT THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER. THATS THE REASON THAT WE ARE TAKING UP ALL THESE APPEALS, FOR ORDERS, TOGETHER. 2. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, RATHER AT THE R EQUEST OF THE PARTIES, WE WILL BEGIN BY TAKING UP THE CENTRAL ISSUE IN THESE APPEA LS, I.E. WHETHER OR NOT THE ENTITLEMENT TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), IN THE CASE OF THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, IS HIT B Y THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15). THE ISSUE BEFORE US: 3. AS WE PROCEED TO SET ON RECORD FACTS OF THE CASE AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, IT IS ONLY APPROPRIATE THAT WE TAKE A QUIC K LOOK AT THE RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISION AND IDENTIFY THE LEGAL ISSUE IN DISPUTE. SECTION 2( 15), AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE INSERTION ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 3 OF 151 OF PROVISO THERETO WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2009, WAS A RELATIVELY SIMPLE SECTION WHICH STATED THAT CHARITABLE PURPOSE INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDU CATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OB JECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY . THE PROVISO TO THIS SUB SECTION, INSERTED WITH E FFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2009, STATES AS FOLLOWS: PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINE SS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COM MERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECT IVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SU CH ACTIVITY 4. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS TO THIS STATUTORY PROVISION BUT THOSE AMENDMENTS DONOT HAVE MUCH BEARING ON THE ISSUE BEFORE US. SUFFICE TO NOTE THAT IN PLAIN WORDS, ALL THAT THIS LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT PROVIDED FOR WAS THAT IN A SITUATION IN WHICH, IN THE COURSE OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY , THE ACTIVITIES OF AN INSTITUTION INVOLVED CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR OF ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATIONSHIP TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A CESS, FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION , THEN IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT SUCH AN INSTITUTION DO ES TO THE INCOME, HOW THAT INCOME IS APPLIED OR HOW THAT INCO ME IS RETAINED, THE INSTITUTION, TO THAT EXTENT, WILL CEASE TO BE CARRYING ON CHARITABL E ACTIVITIES. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 4 OF 151 5. THE CASE OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES, IN SUBSTANCE, I S THAT THAT THE WAY AND MANNER IN WHICH THE APPELLANT CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS ARE CAR RYING ON THEIR ACTIVITIES, THESE ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE AND BUS INESS, AND, THEREFORE, THESE ASSOCIATIONS ARE O LONGER ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. IT IS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT WE HAVE TO APP ROACH THE ISSUE. THE FACTUAL BACKDROP: 6. THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE, SO FAR AS THESE THREE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS ARE CONCERNED, ARE SIMILAR. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE, WE WILL BEGIN BY SUMMARIZING THE FACTS AS RECORDED IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION. THIS ASSESSEE, AS I NDEED OTHER CRICKET SOCIETIES BEFORE US, ARE REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGIS TRATION ACT, AND ARE ALSO REGISTERED, AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION, UNDER SECT ION 12AA OF THE ACT.. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE, AS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS RECORDED IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THAT THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS ARE ENGAGED IN PROMOTING AND D EVELOPING THE GAME OF CRICKET, AT DIFFERENT LEVELS, IN IDENTIFIED AREAS OF THE STATE OF GUJARAT. WHILE THESE ASSOCIATIONS HAVE DIFFERENT AREAS ASSIGNED TO THEM UNDER THEIR R ESPECTIVE MEMORANDUMS OF ASSOCIATIONS, THE OBJECTS ARE SIMILAR. IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, THE OBJECTS, AS NOTED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TO CONTROL, SUPERVISE, REGULATE OR ENCOURAGE, P ROMOTE AND DEVELOP THE GAME OF CRICKET IN THE AREA UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE A SSOCIATION. THE ASSOCIATION CAN ALSO UNDERTAKE ANY OTHER AND ALL ACTIVITIES WHICH M AY BE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSOCIATION. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 5 OF 151 2. TO CREATE, FOSTER AND MAINTAIN FRIENDLY AND COR DIAL RELATIONSHIP THROUGH SPORTS TOURNAMENTS AND COMPETITIONS CONNECTED THEREWITH AN D TO CREATE A HEALTHY SPIRIT THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF SPORTS IN GENERAL AND CRICKET IN PARTICULAR. 3. TO INSTILL THE SPIRIT OF SPORTSMANSHIP IN STUDEN TS ATTENDING SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND MEMBERS OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER CITIZENS AN D TO FOSTER THE SPIRIT OF SPORTSMANSHIP AND INSTILL THE IDEAL OF CRICKET AND EDUCATE THEM IN THE SAME. 4. TO MAINTAIN A PANEL OF APPROVED UMPIRES WHO QUALIFY THEMSELVES BY PASSING THE PRESCRIBED TESTS FOR PURPOSE OF OFFICIATING AS SUCH IN THE MATCHES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSOCIATION. 5. TO SELECT TEAMS TO REPRESENT THE ASSOCIATION IN ANY TOURNAMENTS, CHAMPIONSHIP OR FIXTURE LOCAL OR OTHERWISE. 6. TO ARRANGE, SUPERVISE, HOLD, ENCOURAGE AND FINAN CE VISITS OF TEAMS. 7. TO ARRANGE, AND/OR MANAGE AMONG OTHER THINGS LEA GUE AND/OR ANY OTHER TOURNAMENTS. 8. TO PROMOTE AND HOLD EITHER ALONE OR JOINTLY WITH ANY OTHER ASSOCIATION. CLUB OR PERSONS, SPORTS, MEETINGS, COMPETITIONS AND MATCHES AND TO OFFER, GIVE OR DISTRIBUTE TOWARDS PRIZES, MEDALS AND AWARDS. 9. TO MAKE PROVISION FOR COACHING DESERVING PER SONS IN THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF THE GAME IN GENERAL AND CRICKET IN PARTICULAR. 10. TO IMPART PHYSICAL EDUCATION THROUGH THE MEDIU M OF CRICKET AND TAKE ALL STEPS TO ASSIST TO THE CITIZENS TO DEVELOP THEIR PHYSIQUE. 11. TO ORGANISE MATCHES IN AID OF PUBLIC CHARITIES AND RELIEF FUNDS. 12. TO LAY OUT SUCH GROUND OR GROUNDS FOR PLAYING THE GAME AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES AND TO PROVIDE PAVILION, STADIUMS, OTHER CONVENIENC ES AND AMENITIES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. 13. TO INTRODUCE A SCHEME OF PROFESSIONALISM AND T O IMPLEMENT THE SAME. 14. TO START AND MAINTAIN A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO SPO RTS IN GENERAL AND CRICKET IN PARTICULAR. 15. TO MAINTAIN A LIBRARY OF BOOKS, PERIODICALS AN D OTHER LITERATURE ON SPORTS I.E. GENERAL AND CRICKET IN PARTICULAR AND TO START JOUR NAL OR JOURNALS ON SPORTS IN GENERAL AND/OR CRICKET IN PARTICULAR. 16. TO ENGAGE PERSON OR PERSONS AND PROFESSIONAL C RICKETERS, COACHES, UMPIRES, GROUNDSMEN AND TO PAY REMUNERATION OR HONORARIUM TO THEM. 17. TO START, SPONSOR AND/OR TO SUBSCRIBE TO ANY F UND FOR THE BENEFIT OF PLAYERS, UMPIRES, COACHES, GROUNDSMEN, EMPLOYEES OR THEIR FAMILIES. 18. TO COLLECT FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCI ATION AND TO UTILISE SUCH IN SUCH A MANNER AS THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION CONSIDER DESIRABLE FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION. 19. TO HOLD AND MAINTAIN THE LAWS OF CRICKET AND T HE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA. 20. TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CO- ORDINATE THE ACTIVITIES OF AFFILIATED DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS IN TO THE ASSOCIATION AND AMONGST THEMSELVES. 21. TO STAGE OR SPONSOR AND/OR TO SUBSCRIBE FUNDS T O STAGE A MATCH FC BENEFIT OF THE CRICKETERS OR PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE RENDERED SERVICE GAME OF CRICKET OR FOR THEIR FAMILIES OR TO DENOTE TOWARDS THE DEVELOP PROMOTION OF THE GAME. 22. TO APPOINT REPRESENTATIVE OR REPRESENTATIVES O N THE CRICKET CONFERENCE AND OTHER CONFERENCES, SEMINARS, TALENT EVENTS, SYMPOSIUMS CO NNECTED WITH THE GAME OF CRICKET. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 6 OF 151 23. TO INVEST MONEYS AND FUNDS OF THE ASSOCIATION IN SUCH A MANNER AS MAY BE DECIDED UPON BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION C APABLE OF BEING CONVENIENTLY CARRIED ON IN CONNECTION WITH OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCI ATION. 24. TO CARRY ON ANY OTHER ACTIVITY WHICH MAY SEEM TO THE ASSOCIATION CAPABLE OF BEING CONVENIENTLY CARRIED ON IN CONNECTION WITH OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION. 25. TO CARRY ON ANY OTHER ACTIVITY FOR PROMOTING T HE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION WHICH ARE CALCULATED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO PROTECT A ND/OR TO ENHANCE THE VALUE OF ITS PROPERTIES OR ITS RIGHTS AND IS CONDUCTIVE TO THE O BJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION. 26. TO ACQUIRE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND TO APPLY BOTH THE CAPITAL AND INCOME THEREOF AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OR MORT GAGE THEREOF, FOR OR TOWARDS, AIL OR ANY OF THE OBJECTS OF THE BOARD. 27. TO START, ASSIST, ENCOURAGE OR PROMOTE FOR TRA INING CRICKETERS AND TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH AMENITIES AND FACILITIES, USUALLY PROVIDED IN BOARDING SCHOOLS. 28. TO APPOINT COMMITTEE OR COMMITTEES FROM TIME T O TIME TO ORGANISE MATCHES FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION AND T O UTILISE THE NET PROCEEDS THEREOF TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE OBJECTS. 29. TO PURCHASE, REPAIR, MAKE, SUPPLY, TAKE ON LEA SE, HIRE OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRE ANY MOVABLE AND/OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, RIGHTS OR PRIVIL EGES NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MANAGING COMMITTEE MAY AT ITS DIS CRETION DEEM FIT. 30. TO SELL, MORTGAGE, EXCHANGE, LEASE, DISPOSE OF OR OTHERWISE DEAL WITH, ALL OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY OR FUNDS OF THE ASSOCIATION IT MAY AT ITS DISCRETION DEEM FIT. 31. TO BORROW, WHENEVER NECESSARY BY AND MODE WITH OR WITHOUT SECURITY, WITH OR WITHOUT INTEREST AND TO PURCHASE, REDEEM OR PAY OFF ANY SUCH SECURITIES. 32. TO EMPLOY, APPOINT EXECUTIVE SECRETARIES AND A SSISTANT SECRETARIES, CLERKS, MANAGERS, COACHES, PROFESSIONAL CRICKETERS, UMPIRES , SCORERS, STATISTICIANS, GROUNDSMEN, PEONS, SERVANTS AND OTHER SERVICE PERSO NNEL AND STAFF AND TO PAY TO THEM AND OTHER PERSONS IN RETURN FOR THEIR SERVICES TO THE ASSOCIATION SALARIES, WAGES, GRATUITIES, PENSIONS, HONORARIUMS, COMPENSAT IONS, ANY EX-GRATIA PAYMENTS AND/OR PROVIDENT FUNDS, OTHER FUNDS AND TO REMOVE O R DISMISS SUCH EMPLOYEES. 33. TO PROMOTE SUCH BENEVOLENT OR OTHER FUNDS AND TO DONATE SUCH SUM OR SUMS FOR - 1. SUCH CAUSES AS WOULD BE DEEMED FIT BY THE ASS OCIATION CONDUCIVE TO THE PROMOTION OF THE GAME OF CRICKET; 2. THE BENEFIT OF A CRICKETER OR HIS WIDOW OR C HILDREN AS THE ASSOCIATION MAY DEEM FIT; 3. ANY OTHER PERSON WHO HAS SERVED CRICKET OR HIS WIDOW OR HIS CHILDREN AS THE ASSOCIATION CONSIDERS FIT. 34. GENERALLY TO DO ALL SUCH OTHER ACTS AND THINGS AS MAY SEEM TO THE ASSOCIATION TO BE CONVENIENT AND/OR CONDUCIVE TO THE CARRYING OUT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION. 7. ON THE SIMILAR LINES, THE OBJECTS OF THE BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION ARE AS FOLLOWS: (A) TO PROMOTE, DEVELOP AND ENCOURAGE CRICKET WITHI N ITS JURISDICTION. (B) TO ARRANGE AND PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CRI CKET CLUBS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 7 OF 151 (C) TO DIRECTLY CONTROL AND MANAGE ALL CRICKET ACTI VITIES WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION. (D) TO PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION AND ARE TO THE DEVELOP MENT OF CRICKET AT ALL LEVELS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION. (E) TO ARRANGE FOR GOOD CRICKET GROUNDS AND MAINTAI N THE PITCH FOR PRACTICE AND MATCHES ARRANGED BY THE ASSOCIATION. (F) TO POPULARIZE THE GAME OF CRICKET WITHIN ITS JU RISDICTION/BY ORGANISING AND/OR CONDUCTING AND/OR CONTROLLING TOURNAMENTS AND MATCH ES. (G) TO SELECT TEAMS TO REPRESENT THE ASSOCIATION IN ANY TOURNAMENT CHAMPIONSHIP OR FIXTURE LOCAL OR OTHERWISE. (H) TO START OR SPONSOR AND/OR TO SUBSCRIBE TO FUND S OR TO STAGE A MATCH FOR THE BENEFIT OF CRICKETERS OR PERSONS WHO HAVE RENDERED SERVICES TO THE GAME OF CRICKET OR FOR THEIR FAMILIES OR TO DONATE TO A SPORTING CAUSE OR INSTITUTION. (I) TO BORROW OR RAISE MONEY WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCIATION. (J) TO COLLECT FUNDS AND TO UTILISE THE SAME IN SUC H MANNER AS MAY BE CONSIDERED FIT FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION. (K) TO INVEST MONEYS AND FUNDS OF THE ASSOCIATION I N SUCH MANNER AS MAY BE DECIDED UPON FROM TIME TO TIME. (L) TO TRAIN UMPIRES AND TO FORM A PANEL OF UMPIRES . (M) TO COLLECT ALL THE CRICKET STATISTICS OF DIFFER ENT PLAYERS AND CLUBS SO AS TO GIVE GUIDANCE IN THE SELECTION OF PLAYERS FOR IMPORTANT MATCHES. (N) TO DO ANY OTHER ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ABOV E OBJECTS NOT INCONSISTENT THERE WITH. 8. THE POSITION FOR SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION IS NO DIFFERENT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY FOLLOWED HIS ORDER FOR GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION IN THIS CASE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, FOR A READY REFERENCE , THE OBJECTS OF THE SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION ARE ALSO REPRODUCED BELOW: THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION ARE : (A) TO CONTROL THE GAME OF CRICKET IN SAURASHTRA A ND KUTCH AND GIVE ITS DECISION ON ALL MATTERS WHICH MAY BE REFERRED TO IT BY ANY DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AFFILIATED TO SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 8 OF 151 (B) TO ENCOURAGE THE FORMATION OF DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS AND THE ORGANISATION OF INTER - DISTRICT AND OTHER TOURNAMENTS. (C) TO ARRANGE, CONTROL, REGULATE AND IF NECESSARY FINANCE VISITS OF TEAMS THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDI A AND TEAMS OF OTHER DISTRICTS IN SAURASHTRA AND KUTCH. (D) TO ARRANGE, CONTROL, REGULATE AND FINANCE VISI TS OF SAURASHTRA CRICKET TEAM TO TOUR STATES/DISTRICTS THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF C ONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA OR ELSEWHERE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BODIES GOVERNING CRICKET IN THE STATES TO BE VISITED. (E) TO PROMOTE THE GAME THROUGHOUT SAURASHTRA AND KUTCH BY ORGANISING COACHING SCHEMES, TOURNAMENTS, EXHIBITION MATCHES AND BY ANY OTHER MANNER. (F) TO FOSTER THE SPIRIT OF SPORTSMANSHIP AND TH E IDEALS OF CRICKET AMONGST SCHOOL, COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND OTHERS AND EDU CATE THEM FOR THE SAME. (G) TO IMPLEMENT THE LAWS OF CRICKET FOR VARIOUS TOURNAMENT AND TO MAKE ALTERATION, AMENDMENT OR ADDITION TO THE LAWS OF CRICKET FOR VA RIOUS TOURNAMENTS WHENEVER DESIRABLE OR NECESSARY. (H) TO CARRY ON ANY OTHER ACTIVITY WHICH MAY SEEM TO THE ASSOCIATION CAPABLE OF BEING CONVENIENTLY CARRIED ON IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOV E, OR CONNECTED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO ENHANCE THE VALUE OF OR RENDER PROFIT ABLE ANY OF THE PROPERTIES OR RIGHTS OF THE ASSOCIATION. (I) TO DONATE SUCH SUM OR SUMS FOR (I) SUCH CAUS ES AS WOULD BE DEEMED FIT BY THE ASSOCIATION CONDUCIVE TO THE PROMOTION OF THE GAME OF CRICKET (II) THE BENEFIT OF A CRICKETER OR HIS WIDOW OR CHILDREN AS THE ASSOCIATI ON MAY DEEM FIT (III) ANY OTHER PERSON WHO HAS SERVED CRICKET OR HIS WIDOW OR HIS C HILDREN AS THE ASSOCIATION MAY CONSIDER FIT. (J) TO ORGANISE MATCHES FOR THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION AND UTILISE THE NET PROCEEDS THEREOF TOWARDS THE IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE OBJECT SET THEREIN. (K) TO LAY OUT ANY GROUND FOR PLAYING THE GAME A ND FOR OTHER PURPOSE AND TO PROVIDE PAVILION, CANTEEN AND OTHER CONVENIENCES AND AMENIT IES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. (L) TO IMPART PHYSICAL EDUCATION THROUGH THE MED IUM OF CRICKET AND TAKE ALL STEPS TO ASSIST THE CITIZENS TO DEVELOP THEIR PHYSIQUE. (M) TO APPOINT COMMITTEES FROM TIME TO TIME TO ORG ANISE MATCHES FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION AND TO UTILISE TH E NET PROCEEDS THEREOF TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OBJECTS SET OUT HEREIN. (N) TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CO -ORDINATE THE ACTIVITIES OF AFFILIATED ASSOCIATIONS, INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS IN REL ATION TO THE ASSOCIATION AND AMONGST THEMSELVES. (O) TO SELECT TEAMS TO REPRESENT SAURASHTRA IN RA NJI MATCHES PLAYED IN SAURASHTRA AND KUTCH AND OTHER STATES AND TO SELECT SUCH OTHER TEA MS AS THE ASSOCIATION MAY DECIDE FROM TIME TO TIME. (P) TO START AND MAINTAIN A LIBRARY OF BOOKS, PERI ODICALS AND MUSEUM ON SPORTS IN GENERAL AND CRICKET IN PARTICULAR AND TO START JOUR NAL OR JOURNALS ON CRICKET. (Q) GENERALLY TO DO ALL SUCH OTHER ACTS AND THING S AS MAY SEEM TO THE ASSOCIATION TO BE CONVENIENT AND/OR CONDUCIVE TO THE CARRYING OUT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION. 9. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO PROVIDING EDUCATION FOR CR ICKETERS BY PROVIDING FOR, AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SCHOOL TEAMS, DISTR ICT LEVEL TEAMS, PLAYERS OF ALL AGE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 9 OF 151 GROUPS, FOR LEARNING THE INTRICACIES OF CRICKET, BY PLAYING THE MATCHES AND RUNNING A COACHING ACADEMY FOR TEACHING FINER ASPECTS OF GAME TO THE BUDDING CRICKETERS. THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, RELYING UPON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 395 [F. NO. 181(5) 82/IT(A-I)], DATED 24-9-1984, IS THAT THE AS SESSEE, BEING A SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION FOR SPORTS, HAS ITS OBJECTS AS ADVANCEME NT OF OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, AND, FOR THIS REASON, IT FALLS IN THE CAT EGORY OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. AS A COROLLARY TO THIS POSITION, IT IS ALSO CONTENDED TH AT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), WHICH APPLIES ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS RESIDUARY CLASS OF OBJECTS PURSUED BY THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, WOULD INTO PLAY IN SUCH CA SES. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PUT TO NOTICE THAT AS TO THE ASSESSEE NOT BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15). THE FIRST PLEA OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY IMPARTING EDUCATION OF CRICKET, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), WHICH IS RELEVANT ONLY FOR THE RESIDUAL CLAUSE (I.E. ADVANCEMENT OF A N OBJECT, OTHER THAN RELIEF TO POOR, EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF, OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTI LITY), HAD NO APPLICATION IN THE MATTER. THIS PLEA, AFTER EXTENSIVELY REPRODUCING F ROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS REJECTED, IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-13, ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING REASONING: THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CARE FULLY CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTIVITY OF PROMOTI NG THE GAME OF CRICKET IS AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CRICKET IS A SUBJECT IMPARTED IN SCHOOLS AS PER GUJARAT STATE EDUCATIONA L CURRICULUM. IT FURTHER RELIED ON THE DEPARTMENTS CIRCULAR AND HONBLE FIN ANCE MINISTERS SPEECH TO ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 10 OF 151 ESTABLISH ITS CASE AS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE. THE ISSUE IN HAND IS TO DECIDE WHETHER ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION TO PERSONS/ STUDENTS THE GAME OF CRICKET IS EDUCATION AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HENCE, IT IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF THE TERM EDUCATION. EDUCATION IS NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD AS THE PROCESS OF IMPARTING KNO WLEDGE AND PREPARING ONESELF INTELLECTUALLY FOR A MATURE LIFE. IT MEANS SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRAINING GIVEN TO PREPARE A YOUNG PERSON FOR WORK O F LIFE THROUGH SYSTEMIC SCHOOLING. THUS THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE TERM EDUCAT ION IS TO IMPART KNOWLEDGE THROUGH THE MEAN OF SYSTEMIC SCHOOLING. I N THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY COACHING STUDENTS/ POTENTIAL PERSO NS IN THE GAME OF CRICKET THROUGH COACHING CAMPS ETC. THE COACHING IS GIVEN T O THE PERSONS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE GAME AND WHO HAVE ALREADY REACHED CERTAIN LEVEL OF COMPETENCE IN THE GAME. THIS IS NOT THE NORMAL SCHO OLING AS ENVISAGED BY VARIOUS COURTS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CRICKET IS A SUBJECT AS PER THE CURRICULUM OF THE STATE OF GUJARAT. THE SUB MISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE IT IS UNDER SUBJECT OF PHYSICA L EDUCATION AND IT IS NOT OF SCHOLASTIC INSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IMPARTS EDUCATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THE VERY ESSENCE OF EDUCATION IS ABSENT IN THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS MAINLY EARNED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF ADVERTISING AND TICKET SALES- A FA CT THAT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT MAIN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS FROM ENTERTAINMENT O F PUBLIC BY ARRANGING NATIONAL ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 11 OF 151 AND INTERNATIONAL MATCHES FOR A FEE. THE INCOME GEN ERATING ACTIVITY, AS IS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS HOLDING CRICKET MATCHE S. IT WAS NOTED, FOR EXAMPLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THAT WHILE THE ASSESSE E HAS TOTAL INCOME OF RS 20,24,81,544, IT INCLUDES INCOME OF RS 12,20,19,916 FROM HOSTING THE CRICKET MATCHES AND INCOME OF RS 8,04,61,628 FROM OTHER SOU RCES. THE DETAILS OF THE INCOME WERE STATED TO BE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY INVOLVED IN PROMOTION OF CRICKET AS GAME. ON PERUSAL OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSE E, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.20,24,81,544/- WHICH INCLU DES MATCH INCOME OF RS.12,20,19,916/- AND OTHER INCOME OF RS.8,04,61,62 8/-. THE DETAILS OF MATCH INCOME ARE GIVEN BELOW: - MATCH INCOME AMOUNT (RS.) INCOME FROM INDIA-WEST-INDIES DAY-NIGHT MATCH 3,60, 84,687 INCOME FROM WORLD CUP MATCHES 8,12,15,229 RELIANCE SPONSORSHIP INCOME 10,00,000/- SUBSIDY FROM BCC1 37,20, 000/- TOTAL 12,20,19,916 THE DETAILS OF THE MATCH INCOME FROM THE ABOVE MATC HES IS AS UNDER:- INCOME WORLD CUP MATCHES INDIA WEST-INDIES MATCH SALE OF SPACE (VENUE AND ADVERTISEMENT) 8,11,15,229 2,09,80,000 TICKET SALE 1,49,01,915 THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT, MORE THAN 50% OF THE TOTA L RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ON ACCOUNT OF MATCH INCOME WHICH INCLUDES SALE OF SPAC E, TICKET SALE, A/C CABIN TICKET SALE, ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF ENTERTAINMENT OF PUBLIC AT LARGE BY ARRANGING/POSTING NATIONAL AND INTERNATION AL CRICKET TOURNAMENTS FOR A FEE/CESS. THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS AS MENTIONED IN TH E ABOVE TABLE AMPLY EXPLAINS THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 12 OF 151 NATURE OF ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE TABLE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN PROFIT GENERATING ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE CARRIES OUT THE ACTIVITY OF HOSTING MATCHES AT NATIONAL/INTERNATION AL AT REGULAR INTERVALS WHICH IS CLEAR FROM ITS INCOME & EXPENDITURE STATEMENT OF TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND OF THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS TO EXPLAIN ITS STAND THAT THE SAID ACTIVI TY OF CONDUCTING CRICKET MATCHES IS NOT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE SAME HAVE BEEN CONSIDE RED AND THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE DECISIONS CITED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND ARE HENCE DISTINGUISHABLE . 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO REFERRED TO, AND RELIED UPON, HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL VS CIT [(1959) 37 ITR 277 (CAL)] IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT A CLUB FORMED F OR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF CRICKET CANNOT BE TREA TED AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. A REFERENCE WAS THEN ALSO MADE TO A DECISION OF CHENN AI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TAMILNADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS DIT EXEMPTIONS [(2 013) 32 TAXMANN.COM 50 (CHENNAI)]. A REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO THE DECISION OF PANAJ I BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ENTERTAINMENT SOCIETY OF GOA VS CIT [(2013) 43 TAXMANN.COM 210 (PANAJI) . THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN THE HANDS OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCI ATION IS CONCERNED, AS FOLLOWS: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE LEGAL PROVISIONS , THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITY OF ADVANCEMENT OF OTHER OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF BUSIN ESS, TRADE AND COMMERCE AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF EDUCATION AS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 2(15) READ WITH PROVISO 1 AND 2 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 13 OF 151 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICERS, ASSESSEES CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND, IN FACT BY REFERRING TO THE FINDINGS IN THE CASE OF BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL OF INDIA TO TH E EFFECT THAT IT WAS AN ORGANIZED BUSINESS ACTIVITY BEING CARRIED ON BY THE BCCI, FOR TIFIED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE FINDI NGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS THAT DEVELOPMENT OF CRICKET, AS AN ACTIVITY, IS NOT AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY, AND THE WAY AND MANNER IN WHICH THE SAID CRICKET PROMOTION ACTIVITY IS BEING CARRIED OUT IS NOTHING BUT BRUTE COMMERCE. LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO TO OK NOTE OF THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL IN INDIA, AND, DISCUSS ED IN DETAIL, AS TO HOW THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT TO AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. A PART OF HIS EXTENSIVE FINDI NGS BY THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRI CKET ASSOCIATION, IS BEING REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTI ONS, CASE LAW RELIED UPON AND THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ORDER. ON GOIN G THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, VARIOUS CASE LAW, ONE OF THE MAIN POINT THAT EMERGE S IS WHETHER FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO GCA OR NOT? THE A PPELLANT HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL 1 AND 2. HOWEVER AS ALL THE GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NO. 1 TO 7 ARE CLOSELY LINKED TO EACH OTHER, ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED JOINTL Y AND THE DECISIONS AT LATER STAGE HAVE BEEN MENTIONED GROUND WISE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE. 6.1 IN MY OPINION, ONE NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE HIS TORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF POLICY CHANGES IN SECTION 2(15) AS WELL AS SECTION 10 THAT DEALS W ITH BLANKET EXEMPTION. THIS WOULD HELP IN UNDERSTANDING THE POSITION OF GCA IN RESPECT TO APP LICABILITY OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) TO IT. 6.2 THE LAW MAKERS HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT TRADE , COMMERCE AND BUSINESS CANNOT BE MIXED WITH CHARITY AND THEY CANNOT GO TOGETHER. HEN CE, THE DEFINITION OF 'CHARITABLE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 14 OF 151 PURPOSE' IN SEC-2(15) AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED WAS LIM ITED BY THE EXPRESSION 'ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY NOT INVOLVING CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY OR PROFIT . HOWEVER, THE PHRASE THAT NOT INVOLVING 'THE CARRYING ON ANY ACTI VITY FOR PROFIT' WAS OMITTED BY FINANCE ACT, 1983 WITH EFFECT FROM 1/4/1984, BUT WITH THIS, RESTRICTIONS WAS IMPOSED ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY WAY OF INTRODUCING SECTION-11 (4A) OF THE ACT AT THE SAME TIME. 6.3 EARLIER U/S.10 OF THE ACT INCOME OF CERTAIN BO DIES/ORGANIZATIONS/ AUTHORITIES/INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE STATE SUCH AS URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES, HOUSING BOARD, INSTITUTIONS/ORGANISATIONS CONTROLLING/ SUPE RVISING/REGULATING/ ENCOURAGING GAMES OF CRICKET, HOCKEY ETC., COFFEE BOARD, TEA BOARD, R ESEARCH ASSOCIATIONS, NEWS AGENCY, SAARC FUND, SECURITISATION TRUST ETC. WERE GIVEN BL ANKET EXEMPTION FROM THE TAXABLE INCOME. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM VARIETY OF ORGANISATION S AND SECTORS COVERED, THE CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH EXEMPTION U/S 10 OF THE ACT HAD NEVER BEEN THAT THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE UNDERTAKING CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. 6.4 THE MAJOR CHANGE IN THE LAW CAME THROUGH FINAN CE ACT, 2002, W.E.F. 1/4/2003. VIDE THIS ACT THE PROVISION OF SEC.10(20), 10(20A), 10(23), 10(29) UNDERWENT MAJOR CHANGE. SEC. 10(20A), 10(23) AND 10(29) WERE OMITTED BY FIN ANCE ACT, 2002. PRIOR TO OMISSION SEC-10(23) WAS AS UNDER:- 10(23) - 'ANY INCOME OF AN ASSOCIATION OR INSTITUTION ESTABLISHED IN INDIA WHICH MAY BE NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THE OF FICIAL GAZETTE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSOCIATION OR INSTITUTION HAS AT ITS OBJE CT THE CONTROL, SUPERVISION, REGULATION OR ENCOURAGEMENT IN INDIA OF THE GAMES OF CRICKET, HOC KEY, FOOTBALL, TENNIS OR SUCH OTHER GAMES OR SPORTS AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY N OTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF.....' 6.5 THUS, BY OMISSION OF SEC. 10(23), THE EXEMPTIO N HITHERTO ENJOYED BY ASSOCIATIONS/INSTITUTIONS FOR SPORTS SUCH AS CRICKE T, HOCKEY, FOOTBALL, TENNIS ETC. WAS WITHDRAWN. BY OMISSION OF SEC. 10(29) THE EXEMPTION AVAILABLE WITH AUTHORITY FOR MARKETING OF COMMODITIES WAS WITHDRAWN. BUT THE SEC .10 (29A) CONTINUED THE EXEMPTION FOR COFFEE BOARD, RUBBER BOARD, TEA BOARD, TOBACCO BOARD, SPICES BOARD, COIR BOARD, AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCTS EXPORT DEV ELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. SIMILARLY, THE FINANCE ACT, 2008, W.E.F. 01/04/2009 INSERTED T HE SECTION 10(26AAB) THAT GRANTED EXEMPTION TO INCOME OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE/BOARD. THE INTENT OF PARLIAMENT IS CLEAR FROM THESE CHANGES. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE WERE DEFINITIVE CHANGES IN TAXATION POLICY AND THE PARLIAMENT CONSCIOUSLY ALLO WED THE EXEMPTIONS U/S 10 TO BE ENJOYED BY CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS AND AT THE SAME TIME EXCLUD ED CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS FROM BLANKET EXEMPTION U/S 10 OF THE ACT. 6.6 THIS CONSCIOUS POLICY CHANGE WAS DISTINCTLY VISIBLE IN CASE OF INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE STATE, WHEREIN BY FINANCE ACT, 2002 AN EXPLANATION TO 10 (20) WAS ADDED TO LIMIT THE APPLICABILITY OF BLANKET EXEMPTI ON. THIS EXPLANATION LIMITED THE SCOPE OF ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 15 OF 151 'LOCAL AUTHORITY ENJOYING EXEMPTION U/S.10(20) ONLY TO PANCHAYAT, M UNICIPALITIES, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEES/DISTRICT BOARDS AND CANTONMENT BOARDS. THE SAID EXPLANATION IS AS FOLLOWS: 'EXPLANATION:- FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE, THE EXPRESSION LOCAL AUTHORITY' MEANS- (I) PANCHAYAT AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE(D) OF ARTICLE 24 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION; OR (II) MUNICIPALITY AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (E) OF ARTIC LE 243P OF THE CONSTITUTION; OR (III) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT BOARD, LEGALLY ENT ITLED TO, OR ENTRUSTED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH, THE CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT OF A MUN ICIPAL OR LOCAL FUND; OR (IV) CANTONMENT BOARD AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3 OF THE CANTONMENTS ACT, 1924 (2 OF 1924)'. 6.7 BY MEANS OF INTRODUCING AN EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITI ON OF LOCAL AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS HITHERTO NOT THERE, THE PARLIAMENT DENIED EXEMPTION TO ANY OTHER AUTHORITY BEYOND THOSE MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION. 6.8 BY THESE AMENDMENTS THE LAW MAKERS CATEGORICAL LY DERECOGNIZED THE PRINCIPLE THAT ASSOCIATIONS LIKE GCA, SHOULD ENJOY BLANKET EXEMPTI ON. GCA WILL HAVE TO STAND TO THE TEST OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ESPECIALLY OF SECTION 2(1 5) OF THE ACT. HENCE, LEGISLATIVE INTENT WAS CLEAR THAT SUCH AUTHORITIES WERE NOT TO GET IND IRECT SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH TAX EXEMPTION ROUTE. SUCH DE-RECOGNITION OF THE PRI NCIPLE IN RESPECT OF SAID INSTITUTIONS COULD BE BECAUSE OF REASONS SUCH AS NEED FOR HIGHER REVENUE ETC. OVER THE INDIRECT SUPPORT LIKE TAX EXEMPTION. 6.9 AT THE SAME TIME, AS EARLIER BLANKET EXEMPTION U/S.10(23) DOES NOT MAKE THESE INSTITUTIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS AS ENTITIES UNDERTAKIN G ACTIVITIES FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES NOR DOES OMISSION OF SEC. 10(23) PROHIBIT THEM IN GETTI NG REGISTERED U/S. 11/12 OF THE ACT AS PER THE LAID DOWN PROCEDURE UNDER THE SAID SECTIONS. TH OUGH, IT WAS NEVER PROVIDED FOR OR STATED IN ANY POLICY DOCUMENTS THAT THESE INSTITUTI ONS/ASSOCIATION WOULD HEREAFTER ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS YET THE ASS OCIATIONS LIKE GCA, CLAIMED EXEMPTION AS IF THEY WERE PERFORMING CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. EVEN TH E CIRCULAR NO. 395 DATED 24TH SEPTEMBER, 1984 HAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THIS ISSUE. T HE SAID CIRCULAR IS AS FOLLOWS:- 'SECTION 2(15) I CHARITABLE PURPOSE WHETHER PROMOTION OF SPORTS AND GAMES CAN BE CONSID ERED TO BE CHARITABLE PURPOSE 1. THE EXPRESSION 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IS DEFINED I N SECTION 2(15) TO INCLUDE RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF AND THE ADVA NCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 2. THE QUESTION WHETHER PROMOTION OF SPORTS AND GAM ES CAN BE CONSIDERED AS BEING A CHARITABLE PURPOSE HAS BEEN EXAMINED. THE BOARD A RE ADVISED THAT THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 16 OF 151 ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC OR SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF INDIVI DUALS WOULD BE AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IN VIEW THEREOF, PROMOTION OF SPORTS AND GAMES IS CONSIDERED TO BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SE CTION 2(15). THEREFORE, AN ASSOCIATION OR INSTITUTION ENGAGED IN THE PROMOTION OF SPORTS AND GAMES CAN CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, EVEN IF IT I S NOT APPROVED UNDER SECTION 10(23) RELATING TO EXEMPTION FROM TAX OF SPORTS ASS OCIATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS HAVING THEIR OBJECTS AS THE PROMOTION, CONTROL, REGULATION AND, ENCOURAGEMENT OF SPECIFIED SPORTS AND GAMES.' THUS APART FROM CLARIFYING THE ISSUE THAT IN ABSENC E OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23) OF THE ACT, THE ASSOCIATIONS OR INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN PROMOTION, CONTROL ETC. OF THE GAMES WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT A S THE PROMOTION OF SPORTS AND GAMES IS CONSIDERED TO BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITHIN THE ME ANING OF SECTION 2(15). THE CBDT CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT PROMOTION, CONTROL, SUPERVI SION ETC. OF SPORTS AND GAMES WOULD FALL UNDER THE CLAUSE 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' BECAUSE THIS CLAUSE DEALS WITH ANY OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBL IC OR SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. THUS TH E ACTIVITIES OF GCA ARE UNDER THE CLAUSE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY I.E. BENEFICIAL TO THE PU BLIC OR SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS AND NO O THER CLAUSE. 6.10 THE PARLIAMENT INTERVENED AGAIN AND INTRODUCE D PROVISO TO SEC-2(15) BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E.F. 1/4/2009. THE FIRST PROVISO READS AS FOLLOWS:- 'PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT INVOLVES THE CAR RYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIV ITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 6.11 FURTHER, THE PARLIAMENT ADDED THE SECOND PROV ISO VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2010, WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM, 1/4/2009 WHICH STATED TH AT FIRST PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IF THE RECEIPTS FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES, DID NOT EXCEED RS. 1 0 LAKHS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE PARLIAMENT, VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2011, DECIDED TO REVI SE THIS THRESHOLD IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) FROM RS. 10 LAKHS TO RS. 25 LAKHS W.E .F. 01/04/2012. 6.12 THE PARLIAMENT MADE ITS INTENTION FURTHER CLE AR AND OBVIOUS BY AMENDING THE IT ACT VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2012 BUT WITH EFFECT FROM 1/4 /2009. A NEW SECTION I.E. SEC-13(8) WAS INSERTED TO THE ACT. BY THIS AMENDMENT IT WAS PROVI DED THAT BENEFIT OF SEC-11 OR SEC- 12 WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE IF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE ACT IVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR FROM ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERV ICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 17 OF 151 BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERAT ION, EXCEEDED THE THRESHOLD PROVIDED FOR IN THE PROVISO TO SEC-2(15) OF THE ACT. THE APPLICA TION OF SEC. 13(8) IS DEPENDENT UPON THE RECEIPTS IN A GIVEN YEAR FROM THE ACTIVITY IN THE N ATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR FROM ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELAT ION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. THE A PPLICATION OF SEC. 13(8) IS FOR EACH YEAR, INDEPENDENTLY. THE BENEFIT OF SEC-2(15) WOULD BE DE NIED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CHARITABLE NATURE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION. THE ACT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DISCRETION TO THE AO IN APPLICATION OF SECTION 13(8). THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO GCA U/S 12A OR WHETHER THE INCOME OF GCA IS APPLIED FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE OR NOT, WOULD BE IMMATERIAL ONCE THE AO IS CONVINCED THAT FIRSTLY , GCA IS ENGAGED IN ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY; SECONDLY , IT IS INVOLVED IN THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVIC E IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERAT ION AND THIRDLY , THE RECEIPT FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES EXCEED RS. 10 (OR 25) LAKHS DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE GCA WILL HAVE TO CONVINCE THE AO IN RESPECT ALL THE THREE FA CTORS MENTIONED ABOVE. IF NOT, THEN THE AO WOULD BE LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATE BUT TO INVOKE SE CTION 13(8) AND DENY EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 11 OR 12 OF THE ACT. 6.13 THE HON'BLE ITAT, PANAJI BENCH, IN THE CASE O F ENTERTAINMENT SOCIETY OF GOA [2013] 34 TAXMANN.COM 210 (PANAJI TRIBUNAL) HAS OBS ERVED ON THE ISSUE OF 'IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS' AS UNDER: 'THIS PROVISO IN THE LAST SENTENCE FURTHER STATES T HAT NATURE OF USE OF APPLICATION OR RETENTION OF THE INCOME BY THE INSTITUTION FROM SUC H ACTIVITY WILL NOT BE A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE THIS SPECIFIC PROVISI ON, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED TO LOOK INTO HOW AN INSTITUTION HAS USED, APPLIED OR RETAIN ED ITS INCOME, IF THE SAID HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE INSTITUTION FROM ANY ACTIVITY CARRI ED OUT IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR FROM ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDER ING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. THE WORDS USED IN THE PROVISO ARE 'CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BU SINESS' NOT THE WORDS 'CARRYING ON TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS'. USING OF THE WORDS 'ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF PRIOR TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS' IN OUR OPINIO N HAS A SPECIFIC MEANING WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISO. THESE WORDS CANNOT BE IGN ORED. THIS PROVISION MANDATES THAT THE INSTITUTION NEED NOT ACTUALLY BE CARRYING ON TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS BUT THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY HIM IS SIMILAR TO TR ADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. THE PROFIT MOTIVE IS REQUIRED WHILE AN INSTITUTION IS C ARRYING ON TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. THE USE OF WORDS 'CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTI VITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS' IN OUR OPINION WILL MEAN THAT THERE NEED NOT BE PROFIT MOTIVE IN CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITY BY THE INSTITUTI ON..... THE LEGISLATURE IS FULLY AWARE OF THAT AN INSTITUTION WHICH IS INCORPORATED FOR CH ARITABLE PURPOSE CANNOT HAVE PROFIT MOTIVE.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 18 OF 151 6.14 NO CONTRARY DECISION ON THIS INTERPRETATION H AS BEEN NOTICED. GCA HAS TRIED TO NEGATE THE APPLICATION OF THIS DECISION IN ITS OWN CASE BY REASONING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF GC A. AGREED THAT THE ACTIVITIES ARE DIFFERENT BUT THE FINDINGS OF HON'BLE ITAT ARE FINDINGS ON TH E FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) AND HENCE APPLICABLE TO ALL. 6.15 THESE CHANGES IN ACT CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THAT THE APPLICATION OF PROVISO TO SEC- 2(15) IS NOT ONLY FOR THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION ENGA GED IN TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS BUT ITS ACTIVITIES HAVE TO BE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. IT MEANS THAT THE PROFIT ELEMENT OF BUSINESS MAY OR MAY NOT BE THERE, WHAT I S TO BE SEEN IS THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. THIS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE B USINESS AND THE ACTIVITIES IN NATURE OF BUSINESS SHOULD BE KEPT IN MIND. 6.16 FURTHER, THE PARLIAMENT WAS CLEAR THAT EVEN I F A PART OF THE OVERALL ACTIVITY OF THE INSTITUTION IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE, OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSIN ESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE AND IF THE RECEIPTS FROM SUCH ACTIVITY EXCEEDED THE THRESHOLD (RS. 25 L AKHS) THEN PROVISIONS OF SEC.13(8) WOULD BE APPLICABLE. FINALLY, THE LAW MAKERS WERE ALSO CL EAR THAT THE APPLICATION OF INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES IS OF NO CONSEQUENCES AS BROUGHT OU T CLEARLY IN THE PROVISO TO SEC-2(15) R.W.S. 13(8) OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 OR 12 OF THE ACT. 7. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS THROUGHOUT ITS SUBMISSIONS. IT MUST BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING THE UNIT AND WHAT IS DEC IDED IN ONE YEAR MAY NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR. ESPECIALLY, WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN CH ANGES IN THE PROVISIONS OF CONCERNED SECTIONS OF THE I.T. ACT. FURTHER THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF A DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 155 ITR 120 HAS HELD THAT TO PERPETUATE AN ERROR IS NOT HEROISM, TO RECTIFY IT, IS THE COMPULS ION OF THE JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE. 8.1 THE CBDT HAD ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO. 11 OF 2008 DATED 19/12/2008 WHEREIN IT HAS MENTIONED AS FOLLOWS :- '3. THE NEWLY INSERTED PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15) WI LL APPLY ONLY TO ENTITIES WHOSE PURPOSE IS ' ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GEN ERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' I.E. THE FOURTH LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE CONTAINED IN SECTION 2 (15). HENCE, SUCH ENTITIES WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UN DER SECTION 11 OR UNDER SECTION 10 (23C) OF THE ACT IF THEY CARRY ON COMMERCIAL ACTIVI TIES. WHETHER SUCH AN ENTITY IS CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, CO MMERCE OR BUSINESS IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH WILL BE DECIDED BASED ON THE NATURE, SCOPE, EXTENT AND FREQUENCY OF THE ACTIVITY. 3.1 ......... ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 19 OF 151 3.2 IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, HOWEVER, WHETHER THE ASS ESSES HAS FOR ITS OBJECT 'THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY' IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IF SUCH ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NAT URE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR RENDERS ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRAD E, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THAT ITS OBJECT IS CHARITA BLE PURPOSE, IN SUCH A CASE, THE OBJECT OF 'GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' WILL BE ONLY A M ASK OR A DEVICE TO HIDE THE TRUE PURPOSE WHICH IS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. EACH CASE WOULD, THEREFORE, BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN FACTS AND NO GENERALIZATION IS POSSIBLE. ASSESSEES, WHO CLAIM THAT THEIR OBJECT IS ' CHARITABLE PURPOSE' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15), WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO ESCHEW ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS IN THE NATU RE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATIO N TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 8.2 THE PERUSAL OF THE CIRCULAR REFLECTS THAT THE BOARD HAS EMPHASIZED ON APPLICABILITY OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AS A 'QUESTI ON OF FACT' OF EACH CASE. TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT LOOKING AT THE BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT. TH E APPELLANT HAS REFLECTED ITS INCOME FROM 'MATCH INCOME', 'OTHER INCOME (MAINLY INTEREST ON F DS)'. THE APPELLANT HAS REFLECTED A SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF ITS RECEIPTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE TV SUBSIDY AND IPL SUBVENTION HAS BEEN DIRECTLY TAKEN AS 'CORPUS' BY THE APPELLAN T. THE RECEIPTS FROM BCCI ALTHOUGH CALLED AS SUBSIDY OR SUBVENTION, IT NEED NOT NECESS ARILY HAVE THE MEANING ATTRIBUTABLE TO THOSE WORDS. THESE TWO WORDS HAVE OFTEN BEEN USED I NTERCHANGEABLY BY THE BCCI (SEE THE ANNUAL REPOTS DISCUSSED IN SUCCEEDING PARAS), AND O NLY REFLECT THE PRACTICE OF USAGE OF THESE WORDS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR REAL MEANING. 9.1 IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL NATURE OF RECE IPTS FROM BCCI, IT IS VITAL TO UNDERSTAND THE BACKGROUND OF THESE RECEIPTS. THE DO CUMENTS RELIED UPON TO UNDERSTAND THESE RECEIPTS ARE THE (A) ANNUAL REPORTS OF BCCI, (B) THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION GIVEN BY BCCI TO ITS AO DURING ITS OWN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON TV SUBSIDY OR IPL SUBVENTION, (C) MINUTES OF AGMS OF BCCI WHEREIN DECISIONS ON TV SUBSIDY OR IPL SUBVENTION TO STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS SC AS) WERE TAKEN, (D) THE ACCOUNTING OF THESE RECEIPTS BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS OTHER SC AS IN THEIR BOOKS ETC. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO SEE THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AT BCCI. ALL THE SE ARE VITAL PIECES OF INFORMATION IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE CORRECT NATURE OF RECEIPTS FROM BCCI TO SCAS. THESE SOURCES THAT WOULD HELP TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS FRO M BCCI ARE DISCUSSED BELOW. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS O F BCCI BEFORE THE AO OF BCCI REFERRED IN THE ORDER WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. SEC ONDLY THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAD SUBMITTED THE MINUTES OF AGMS OF BCCI DURING THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS OF THE APPELLANT FOR AY 2011-12. THIRDLY THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE BCCI ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND ARE AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE. IN SHORT ALL THE DOCUMENT REFERRED HEREIN UNDER WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. ESPECIALLY DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS FOR AY 2011-12. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 20 OF 151 9.2 BCCI: THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE BCCI IS (A) TO CONTROL THE G AME OF CRICKET IN INDIA AND GIVE ITS DECISION ON ALL MATTERS INCLUDING WOMEN CRICKET WHI CH MAY BE REFERRED TO IT BY ANY MEMBER ASSOCIATION IN INDIA; (B) TO ENCOURAGE THE FORMATIO N OF STATE, REGIONAL OTHER CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND THE ORGANISATION OF INTER-SATE AND OTHER TOURNAMENTS ETC. 9.3 THE WORKING COMMITTEE IS THE COMMITTEE TO WHOM THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE BOARD IS ENTRUSTED WITH. THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF MEMBERS OF BCCI:- (A) FULL MEMBERS (B) ASSOCIATE MEMBERS AND (C) AFFILIATED MEMBERS. E VERY FULL MEMBER AND CHAIRMAN OF MEETING HAS ONE VOTE. THE ASSOCIATED MEMBER OR AFFI LIATED MEMBER HAVE NO VOTE BUT ARE ELIGIBLE TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETINGS OF THE BOARD, NOR THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BE ELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE WORKING COMMITTEE OR AS AN OFFICE BEARER OR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD. THUS THE DECISIONS OF THE WORKING COM MITTEE ARE THE DECISION OF THE FULL MEMBERS I.E. SCAS. THE WORKING COMMITTEE WHICH IS ALSO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BOARD IS THE ONLY POWERFUL COMMITTEE HAVING VARIOUS REPRE SENTATIVES. ALL THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD ARE TAKEN BY MAJORITY OF VOTES AND IN THE CAS E OF AN EQUALITY OF VOTES THE CHAIRMAN HAS THE CASTING VOTE. 9.4 THE MOA ALSO MENTIONS THAT ALL THE MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THEIR ACCOUNTS WITHIN STIPULATED TIME AND THEY SHALL NOT BE ENTITL ED TO VOTE AT A MEETING PROVIDED A DUE NOTICE IN WRITING IS GIVEN. 9.5 THE BCCI/BOARD SHALL BE COMPRISED OF (A) PRESI DENT (B) 5 VICE PRESIDENTS ONE FROM EACH ZONE (C) AN HONY. SECRETARY (D) AN HONY. JT. S ECRETARY AND (E) AN HONY. TREASURER. ALL THE MEMBERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO HAVE ONE REPRE SENTATIVE ON THE BOARD. 9.6(A) RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FOUR YEARS THAT REFLECT THE GROWTH OF REVENUE OF BCCI. (SOURCE: WEBSITE OF BCCI) ANNUAL REPORT 2007-08 9.6.1 AS PER TREASURERS REPORT BCCLS FINANCIAL PE RFORMANCE IN 2007-08 INCREASED BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS WITH OVERALL INCOME EXCEEDING R S. 1000 CRORES AND SURPLUS TOUCHING A NEW HEIGHT OF RS. 303.15 CRORES. DURING THE YEAR BC CI HAS EARNED MEDIA RIGHTS INCOME OF RS. 559.31 CRORES AS AGAINST RS. 313.62 CRORES IN 2 006-07 AND RS. 341.42 CRORES IN 2005-06. THE TREASURER HAS REPORTED THAT THE TV SUBVENTIONS TO STATE ASSOCIATIONS INCREASED TO RS. 371.89 CRORES IN 2007-08 AS COMPARED TO RS. 211.53 CRORES IN 2006-07 AND RS. 224.51 CRORES IN 2005-06. WITH REGARD TO IPL SUBVENTION TH E TREASURER HAS REPORTED THAT RS. 203 CRORES BEING 70% OF FRANCHISEE FEES IS PROPOSED TO BE GIVEN AS SUBVENTION TO THE STATE ASSOCIATION FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. FURTHER ON IPL AN D ITS MEDIA RIGHTS THE ANNUAL REPORT HAS MENTIONED THAT LEADING SPORTS BROADCASTERS SONY MAX AND WORLD SPORTS GROUP BACKED THE DLF IPL GLOBAL MEDIA RIGHTS FOR 10 YEARS (2008- ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 21 OF 151 17). THE REPORT FURTHER STATES THAT THE DLF IPL HAS THUS SET NEW STANDARD IN ENTERTAINMENT, IN STADIUM AND ON THE TV. ANNUAL REPORT 2008-09 9.6.2 DURING THE YEAR, BCCI EARNED MEDIA RIGHTS A MOUNTING TO RS. 466 CRORES. THE IPL CONTRIBUTED RS. 662 CRORES TO ITS INCOME. T HE TREASURER HAS MENTIONED UNDER THE HEADING T.V SUBVENTION THAT THERE IS A REMARKABLE INCREASE IN THE PAYMENT OF T.V SUBSIDY. IPL SUBVENTION, INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY THR OUGH MEMBERS ASSOCIATION FROM RS. 456 CRORES TO RS. 624 CRORES ON WHICH BCCI-IPL HAD ALSO CONTRIBUTED IN DISTRIBUTION OF RS. 202 CRORES AS IPL SUBVENTION DURING THE YEAR 2008-0 9 WHICH IS ABOUT 37% INCREASE OVER THE LAST YEAR. THE ANNUAL REPORT ALSO THROWS LIGHT ON THE INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE WHICH HAS BEEN EMERGED AS CRICKET AS MOST VALUABLE PROPERTY A ND THE 6 TH MORE POWERFUL PROPERTY IN THE WORLD AS PER THE STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE INTERNA TIONAL RENOWNED SPORTSPRO MAGAZINE. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT THAT THE IPL, THE VISION OF BCCI JT. PRESIDENT LALIT MODI HAS ONLY BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR TWO TOURNAMENTS BUT HAS ALREADY REVOLUTIONIZED CRICKET. THE BROADCAST RIGHTS WERE S OLD FOR $1.026 BILLION EQUIVALENT TO $1.71 MILLION PER GAME. TITLE SPONSORSHIP RIGHTS WERE SOL D FOR $50 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS. ANNUAL REPORT 2009-10 9.6.3 THE TREASURER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE OVERAL L INCOME OF BCCI EXCLUDING IPL AND CLT ROSE TO RS. 847 CRORES AS AGAINST RS. 7 11 CRORES DURING THE YEAR 2008-09. THE IPL SUFFERED A LOSS OF RS. 41.90 CRORES BECAUSE OF INCREASE IN EXPENSES DUE TO ITS SHIFTING TO SOUTH AFRICA. HOWEVER, THE CLT 20 WAS ABLE TO GENER ATE PROFIT OF RS. 39.27 CRORES. THE TREASURER HAS INFORMED ITS MEMBERS THAT THE LOSS OF IPL HAS BEEN CALCULATED AFTER PROVIDING RS.202.61 CRORES AS IPL SUBVENTION TO SCAS WHICH WE RE CONSIDERED AS EXPENSES OF IPL. DURING THE YEAR THE BCCI HAS DISBURSED RS. 128.45 C RORES ON ACCOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY. DURING THE YEAR IT HAD EARNED MEDIA RIGHTS OF RS. 575.05 CRORES OUT OF WHICH 81.5 CRORES WERE GIVEN AS TV SUBSIDY TO SCAS. ANNUAL REPORT 2010-11 9.6.4 DURING F.Y.2010-11 BCCI HAVE EARNED MEDIA RI GHTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1047 CRORES OUT OF TOTAL GROSS INCOME FOR THE YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS. 2026 CRORES. MEDIA RIGHTS COMPRISED OF MORE THAN 50% OF THE GROSS INCOME OF B CCI. OUT OF 1047 CRORES 422.94 CRORES WERE RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF IPL AND 235.57 C RORES WERE RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF CHAMPIONS LEAGUE TOURNAMENT. THE REMAINING 288.56 C RORES WERE THE MEDIA RIGHTS RECEIVED BY BCCI FOR REST OF THE TOURNAMENTS. OUT O F 388.56 CRORES BCCI HAS GIVEN 237.57 CRORES AS T.V SUBSIDY TO SCAS. FURTHER IT HAS ALSO GIVEN 202.61 CRORE AS IPL SUBVENTION. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT BCCI HAS GIVEN 130.97 CRORES A S INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY TO SCAS. 9.6.5 FROM THE ABOVE REFERRED ANNUAL REPORTS IT CA N BE SEEN THAT NOWHERE BCCI HAS EVER MENTIONED THAT THE TV SUBSIDY OR IPL SUBVENTIO N ARE TO BE TREATED AS 'CORPUS' BY THE SCAS. AND SECONDLY, THE WORDS SUBSIDY AND SUBVENTIO N HAVE BEEN USED INTERCHANGEABLY. 9.7(B) ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF BCCI: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 22 OF 151 9.7.1 IT IS IMPORTANT TO GO THROUGH THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OF BCCI FOR AY 2010- 11 DATED 12/2/2013. THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS A LSO AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE MAIN FINDING OF THE AO IN THE ORDER IS 'PAYMENT OF VARIOUS SUBSIDIES TANTAMOUNT TO DISTRIBUTION OF PRO FITS OF THE ASSESSEE TO ITS MEMBER STATE ASSOCIATIONS AND THEREFORE IS INELIGIBLE BUSINESS E XPENDITURE. THE PAYMENTS MADE TO MEMBER CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS ARE UTILIZED IN THEIR R ESPECTIVE STATES AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON CRICKETING ACTIVITIES. ' 9.7.2 THE AO OF BCCI, BASED ON THE COMMUNICATION OF DIT(E), MUMBAI, HAS NOT GRANTED BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT T O BCCI. THE STAND TAKEN BY BCCI DURING ITS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS MENTIONED BELOW. THE BCCI VIDE ITS SUBMISSION DATED 03/12/2012 TO THE AO HAS EXPLAINED ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION AS FOLLOWS:- '1. BCCI IS SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE TAMI L NADU SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. IT WAS FORMED IN THE YEAR 1929 WITH THE OBJECT OF PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CRICKET IN INDIA AND IS A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATION AL CRICKET COUNCIL (ICC) THE REGULATORY BODY FOR WORLD CRICKET. AS A MEMBER OF I CC, BCCI REPRESENTS INDIA IN BILATERAL TOURS BETWEEN MEMBER COUNTRIES AND IN ICC TOURNAMENTS SUCH AS THE WORLD CUP. 2. BCCI HAS 30 MEMBERS OUT OF WHOM 25 ARE STATE CR ICKET ASSOCIATIONS, 2 ARE PRIVATE CLUBS AND 3 ARE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUT IONS. BCCI DOES NOT OWN OR MANAGE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES THAT ARE R EQUIRED FOR CRICKET. IT ENCOURAGES AND OVERSEES THE VARIOUS STATE ASSOCIATIONS TO PROM OTE THE GAME, BUILD THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZE TOURNAMENTS, LEAGUES, COACH ING CAMPS ETC. IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES. WHENEVER A FOREIGN TEAM VISITS I NDIA, THE INTERNATIONAL MATCHES SUCH AS TEST AND ODI ARE ALLOTTED BY BCCI TO THE ST ATE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS BY A ROTATION POLICY. THE MATCHES ARE CONDUCTED AND MANA GED BY THE RESPECTIVE STATE ASSOCIATIONS AND OVER TIME, ARRANGEMENTS HAVE EVOLV ED ABOUT THE RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES, RIGHTS, SHARES OF REVENUE ETC. TH ESE HAVE EVOLVED IN ORDER TO PROMOTE CO-OPERATION AND UNITY AMONG THE MEMBER ASS OCIATIONS AND BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND FAIRNESS, FOR WHICH TH E SPORT OF CRICKET IS RENOWNED.' 9.7.3 THE BCCI IN ITS SUBMISSION DATED 21/1/2013 EARNED SUBSIDY PAID TO SCAS AND TV SUBVENTION AS STATED AS FOLLOWS:- '13.2 PAYMENTS TO STATE ASSOCIATIONS ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 23 OF 151 DURING THE YEAR, BCCI HAS PAID AMOUNTS TO THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS UNDER THE HEAD 'TV, SUBVENTIONS TO ASSOCIATIONS'. THIS REPRESENTS PAYMENT OF 70% OF THE REVENUE FROM SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS TO THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS '. WHENEVER A FOREIGN TEAM VISITS INDIA, THE INTERNATI ONAL MATCHES SUCH AS TEST AND ODI ARE ALLOTTED BY BCCI TO THE STATE CRICKET ASSOC IATIONS BY A ROTATION POLICY. THE MATCHES ARE CONDUCTED AND MANAGED BY THE RESPECTIVE STATE ASSOCIATIONS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR BCCI TO CONDUCT ALL THESE MATCHES WITH ITS OWN LIMITED PERSONNEL. IT IS DEPENDENT ON THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS, THEIR OFFICE B EARERS, THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR NETWORK AND RESOURCES AT THE LOCAL CENTRE TO CONDUC T THE MATCHES. THE ASSOCIATION MANAGE THE ENTIRE MATCH RIGHT FROM PROVISION OF SECURITY TO PLAYERS, SPECTATORS IN COORDINATION WITH RESPECTIVE STATE POLICE PERSONNEL, TAKING OTHER SECURITY MEASURES LIKE FIRE PREVENTION ETC. T HE ASSOCIATION INCURS A GOOD CHUNK OF EXPENDITURE IN CONDUCTING AN INTERNATIONAL TEST/ODI/T20/IPL/CL T20 MATCHES. IN ORDER TO HAVE FAIR AND EQUITABLE SHARING OF THE REVENUES, ARRANGEMENTS HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME, ABOUT THE RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBIL ITIES, RIGHTS, SHARES OF REVENUE ETC. OF BCCI AND THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS. THE STATE ASSOCIATION IS ENTITLED TO THE TICKET REVENUE AND GROUND SPONSORSHIP REVENUES. EXPENSES O N ACCOUNT OF SECURITY FOR PLAYERS AND SPECTATORS, TEMPORARY STANDS, OPERATION OF FLOODLIGHTS, SCORE BOARDS, MANAGEMENT OF CROWD. INSURANCE FOR THE MATCH, ELECT RICITY CHARGES, CATERING ETC ARE MET BY THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS. ON THE OTHER HAD EXPENDITURE ON TRANSPORTATION OF PLAYERS AND OTHER MATCH OFFICIALS, BOARDING AND LOD GING, EXPENSES ON FOOD FOR PLAYERS AND OFFICIALS, TOUR FEE, MATCH FEE, ETC ARE MET BY BCCI AND REVENUES FROM SPONSORSHIP BELONG TO BCCI. IN RESPECT OF REVENUES FROM SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS, AN ARRANGEMENT HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME. UNTIL 1991-92 TH E INCOME FROM MEDIA RIGHTS WAS MEAGER. WITH THE GROWTH IN INCOME FROM MEDIA RI GHTS, IT BECAME NECESSARY TO OPTIMIZE THE ARRANGEMENT FOR SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS. FOR A TEST SERIES OR ODI SERIES CONDUCTED IN MULTIPLE CENTERS AND ORGANISED BY BCCI AND MULTIPLE STATE ASSOCIATIONS, IT WAS FOUND THAT IF EACH STATE ASSOC IATION WERE TO NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF RIGHTS TO EVENTS IN ITS CENTRE, ITS NEGOTIATING STR ENGTH WOULD BE LOW. IT WAS, THEREFORE, AGREED THAT BCCI WOULD NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY TO OPTIMIZE THE INCOME UNDER THIS HEAD. IT WAS FURTHER DECIDED THAT OUT OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS 70% OF THE GROSS REVE NUE LESS PRODUCTION COST WOULD BELONG TO THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS. EVERY YEAR, BCCI HAS PAID OUT EXACTLY 70% OF ITS RECEIPTS FROM MEDIA RIGHTS (LESS- PRODUCTION COST) TO THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS. THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSOCIAT IONS TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROMOTE CRICKET, MAKING THE GAME MORE POPULAR, NURT URING AND ENCOURAGING CRICKET TALENT, AND LEADING TO HIGHER REVENUES FROM MEDIA RIGHTS. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 24 OF 151 FINANCIAL YEAR COME FROM SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS (NETT) PAYMENTS TO STATE ASSOCIATIONS % PAID 2001-02 46,00,00,000 32,20,00,000 70% 2002-03 46,00,00,000 32,20,00,000 70% 2003-04 46,00,00,000 32,20,00,000 70% 2004-05 143,48,76,209 100,44,13,347 70% 2005-06 320,72,29,934 224,50,60,954 70% 2006-07 296,16,61,646 211,53,63,213 70% 2007-08 531,27,81,225 371,89,46,858 70% 2008-09 438,98,30,523 307,28,81,366 70% 2009-10 545,00,66,045 381,50,46,232 70% 2010-11 339,39,09,746 237,57,36,822 70% EVEN IN THE EVENT THAT EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 I S DENIED, THE PAYMENTS TO STATE ASSOCIATIONS MUST BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION, AS EXP ENDITURE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING S UCH INCOME, IT MUST BE APPRECIATED THAT IN ORDER TO EARN REVENUES, BCCI WA S AND CONTINUES TO BE HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS. BCCI DOES NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE RESOURCES TO CONDUCT THE MATCHES BY ITSELF AND IS D EPENDENT ON THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS TO CONDUCT THE MATCHES. THE INCOME FRO M MEDIA RIGHTS IS DEPENDENT ON THE EFFORTS OF THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS IN CONDUCTING THE MATCHES FROM WHICH THE MEDIA RIGHTS ACCRUE. THE DIVISION OF REVENUES AND E XPENDITURE IS A MATTER OF ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. CERTAIN INCOMES SU CH AS SALE OF TICKET REVENUES BELONG TO THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS, WHO MEET THE EXPE NDITURE ON THE MATCHES SUCH AS SECURITY FOR PLAYERS AND SPECTATORS TEMPORARY STAND S, OPERATION OF FLOODLIGHTS, SCORE BOARDS, MANAGEMENT OF CROWD, INSURANCE FOR THE MATC H, ELECTRICITY CHARGES, CATERING ETC. WHEREAS WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME FRO M SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS, THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN BCCI AND THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS HAS BEEN THAT 70% OF THE REVENUE WOULD BELONG TO THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS. AS SHOWN, THIS HAS BEEN THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR THE TWENTY YEAR S. THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS ARE ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF ESTABLISHED PRACTICE TO 70% O F THE MEDIA RIGHT FEE. IT IS IN EXPECTATION OF THIS REVENUE THAT THE VARIOUS STATE ASSOCIATIONS TAKE AN ACTIVE PART AND COOPERATE IN THE CONDUCT OF THE MATCHES. THIS P AYMENT IS THEREFORE MADE ONLY WITH A VIEW TO EARN THE INCOME FROM MEDIA RIGHTS. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 25 OF 151 THESE PAYMENTS DO NOT REPRESENT DISTRIBUTION OF PRO FITS TO MEMBERS, SINCE THE PAYMENT IS AT A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS REVENUES AN D HAD BEEN PAID EVEN IN THOSE YEARS WHERE BCCI HAD INCURRED A LOSS: BESIDES, THE AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID TO ALL MEMBERS BUT ONLY TO THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS. IN OTHE R WORDS, THE PAYMENT IS NOT MADE TO THE THREE PRIVATE CLUBS OR THE GOVERNMENT INSTIT UTIONS, BUT ONLY TO STATE ASSOCIATIONS. DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS WOULD ALWAYS BE TO ALL THE MEMBERS AND THE FACT THAT THESE OTHER MEMBERS HAVE ACQUIESCED IN THESE P AYMENTS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS. WE REQUES T YOU TO CONSIDER THESE SUBMISSIONS.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 9.7.4 THE A.O IN RESPONSE TO REPLY OF BCCI HAS HE LD AS FOLLOWS:- '13.3 THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSES IS CONSIDERED BUT T HE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN THE EXP ENDITURE SIDE OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT IT IS NOTICED THAT HUGE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN TO STATE ASSOCIATION AS SUBSIDY. BCCI ITSELF HAS NOT DEVELOPED ANY INFRA STRUCTURE NOR DID IT OR CONSTRUCT ANY STADIUM OR OTHER AMENITIES REGARDING PROVISION FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY SCHEME TO MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS. THE PAYMENTS MADE TO STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS IS UTILIZED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GAME OF CRICKET IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACULTIES, FACILITIES FOR SPECTATORS, CONDUCTING COACHING CAMPS, CONDUCTING LOCAL TOURNAMENTS ETC. 13.5 THUS, MAJOR PART OF THE REVENUE IS DIVERTED A S GRANTS TO STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. THE AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED IN THIS YEAR R S. 381,50,46,232/- AS T.V. SUBVENTIONS TO ASSOCIATIONS + RS. 202,60,80,000/- A S T.V. SUBVENTIONS TO ASSOCIATIONS FROM IPL + RS. 1,284,534,159/- INFRAST RUCTURE SUBSIDY TO ASSOCIATIONS...' 13.6 THE BCCI HAS DISTRIBUTED TV SUBVENTIONS, SUBS IDY/STAGING SUBSIDY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY TO ITS ASSOCIATIONS. BY THIS , BCCI HAS DISTRIBUTED PART OF ITS INCOME OF ALL ITS MEMBERS ASSOCIATIONS. THIS IS NOT HING BUT DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT TO ITS MEMBERS. FURTHER THE A.O HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS : 13.11 FURTHER, INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY, TV SUBVENTI ON AND AS SUBSIDY/STAGING SUBSIDY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO STATE ASSOCIATION IS NOT ACTUALLY SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE IT HAS SIMPLY BEEN GIVEN TO STATE ASSOCIAT ION. THIS IS ONLY BE CONVECTION AND FAITH ON STATE ASSOCIATION BUT NO PROPER CONTRO L IS THERE. SINCE THERE ARE NO PROPER FINANCIAL CONTROL OF BCCI ON ITS ASSOCIATION TO SEE THAT THE MONEY GIVEN ARE ACTUALLY SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS OBJECT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ALLOW IT AS DEDUCTION AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME AS THE SAME ARE NOT ACT UALLY INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 26 OF 151 13.13 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS IS NOTHING BUT DI STRIBUTION OF PROFIT TO ITS MEMBERS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTROL MECHANISM AND FINANCI AL CONTROL THE MONEY GIVEN TO STATE ASSOCIATION AS INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY, TV SUB VENTION AND SUBSIDY/STAGING SUBSIDY CANNOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 13.14 FURTHER INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY TO STATE ASSO CIATION, TV SUBVENTION AND AS SUBSIDY/STAGING SUBSIDY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ACTUALLY SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE IT HAS SIMPLY BEEN GIVEN TO STATE ASSOCIATION, AS SUCH THESE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE HEREWITH AS EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSI VELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. EVEN IF THE EXEMPTION WOULD HAVE GRANTED BY ANY AUT HORITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE T. V. SUBVENTION AND SUBSIDY/STAGING SUBSIDY GIVEN TO THE MEMBER ASSOCIATION CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS APPLICATION AS THE SAME IS GIVEN AS S UBSIDY TO ASSOCIATIONS AND NOT SPENT BY ASSESSEE FOR ITS OBJECTS.' 9.7.5 WITH REGARD TO LAUNCHING OF IPL AND ALLOWING PRIVATE ENTITIES TO SHARE REVENUE THE A.O HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS :- 'THE BCCI HAS ENTERED INTO THIS VENTURE SIMPLY TO E ARN PROFIT. PROMOTION OF CRICKET IS NO WHERE CONCERN OF THE BCCI. BCCI IS ALREADY CASH SURPLUS. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT LAUNCHED IPL IN THE INTEREST OF THE GAME. ASSESSEE HAD PRESENTED THE IPL AS BUSINESS TO INVES TORS. THE FRANCHISEE OWNERS WERE EXPLAINED ABOUT THE ROI I.E. RETURN OF INVESTMENT. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ENTIRE IPL WAS MARKETED AS A BUSINESS.' 9.7.6 THE RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF MEDIA RIGHT ARE PUR ELY THE RECEIPTS FROM COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (ALSO REFER TO ANNUAL REPORT 2007 -08 AT PARA 9.6.1 ABOVE). DURING FY 2008-09, THERE HAD BEEN A MAJOR CONTROVERSY WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOCATION OF TV/MEDIA RIGHTS BY THE BCCI. THERE WAS A SEARCH & S URVEY PROCEEDINGS ON WORLD SPORTS GROUP (WSG) AND MULTI SCREEN MEDIA (MSM) PVT . LTD. BY THE IT DEPARTMENT. THE ALLOTMENT OF MEDIA RIGHTS WAS NOT A NON-CONTROVERSIAL PROCESS. IN THE END, BCCI & MSM HAD RESTRUCTURED THEIR MEDIA RI GHT AGREEMENT AND MSM HAD AGREED TO PAY RS. 425 CRORES TO BCCI AS FACILIT ATION FEES ETC. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS, NO CONCLUSIONS ARE DRAWN BASED ON THE SAID CONTROVERSY THAT HAD ENGULFED BCCI AND MEDIA RIGHTS. IT ONLY BE INFE RRED THAT THE BCCI REMAINED POWERFUL IN ITS NEGOTIATIONS ON MEDIA RIGHTS MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT ALL ITS FULL MEMBERS OR SCAS HAD AUTHORIZED BCCI TO NEGOTIATE ON THEIR BEHALF. THIS IS APPARENT FROM THE SUBMISSION OF BCCI TO ITS AO. THI S HAD HELPED BCCI TO NEGOTIATE FROM THE POSITION OF STRENGTH. WHAT WAS A T STAKE WAS LARGE QUANTUM OF SHARE OF REVENUE THAT THE SCAS HAD STARTED GETTING AS TV SUBSIDY DUE TO THE NEGOTIATIONS BY BCCI ON THEIR BEHALF. 9.7.7 THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE AO OF BCCI ARE I N THE PERSPECTIVE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF BCCI. THESE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS ONLY HELP US IN UNDERSTANDING THE PERSPECTIVE OF BCCI WITH REGARD T O THE TV SUBSIDY AND IPL ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 27 OF 151 SUBVENTION. NO SUPPORT IS DRAWN IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE APPELLANT FROM THE FINDINGS OF AO OF BCCI. 98 (C) BCCI - ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGS (AG M) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE GCA HAS SUBMITTED THE MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGS (AGM) OF BCCI NORMALLY HELD IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER OF EACH YEAR. THE RELEVANT ISSUES IN THE MINUTES ARE FLAGGED HEREUNDER: 9.8.1 AGM FOR FY 2000-01 IT WAS IN 2001 THAT THE BCCI SEEMS TO HAVE INTRODUC ED THE ROTATION POLICY IN THE ALLOCATION OF VENUES FOR CRICKET MATCHES. IN THE SA ME MEETING THE AGM HAS ADOPTED HONY. TREASURERS REPORT AND THE AUDITED ACC OUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/3/2001 AT ITEM NO.4. HONY. TREASURER HAD INFORME D THE AGM THAT HENCEFORTH THE ACCUMULATION CAN BE MADE ONLY FOR FIVE YEARS IN STEAD OF 10 YEARS. HE INFORMED THE AGM THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE WORKING COMMITTEE HAD RECOMMENDED FOR TRANSFER OF RS. 10 CRORES TO THE IN FRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUNDS AND RS. 7 CRORES TO RANJI TROPHY FUNDS OUT OF THE C URRENT YEAR PROFITS. THE AGM APPROVED ALL THESE DECISIONS. IT WAS THE CHAIRMAN W HO SUGGESTED THAT, AS ALREADY DECIDED IN THE WORKING COMMITTEE, HENCEFORTH THE TV SUBSIDIES SHOULD BE SENT TOWARDS 'CORPUS FUNDS' AND THIS DECISION CAN ALSO B E APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THIS MEETING. THEREAFTER THE MEMBERS UNANIMOUSLY AP PROVED THAT HENCEFORTH THE TV SUBSIDIES SHOULD BE SENT BY THE BOARD TO THE MEM BER ASSOCIATIONS TOWARDS 'CORPUS FUND' INSTEAD OF SUBSIDY FUND'. IN THE SAM E AGM AT ITEM NO. 12 THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE WORKING COMMITTEE ON 25/08/20 01 WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. THE DECISION WAS IN RESPECT OF DISCONT INUANCE OF THE POLICY OF WITHHOLDING 50% OF TV SUBSIDY AND ABOUT THE DECISIO N TO RELEASE 100% TV SUBSIDY TO MEMBERS AND INCREASING THE LIMIT FOR INFRASTRUCT URE SUBVENTION FROM RS. 2 CRORES TO RS. 4 CRORES. FURTHER THE AGM ALSO TOOK T HE DECISION AS PER THE SUBMISSION OF HONY. TREASURER THAT THE TOTAL TV SUB SIDIES RECEIVED IS RS. 46 CRORES OUT OF WHICH THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE MEMBERS IS RS. 32 CRORES REPRESENTING 70% WHICH WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: - SHARE OF NON STAGING ASSOCIATIONS - SHARE OF STAGING ASSOCIATIONS BASED ON TEST, ODI - THREE DAY MATCHES - STAGING ASSOCIATIONS 9.8.2 AGM FOR F.Y.2005-06 AT ITEM NO.4 OF THE MINUTES IT IS STATED AS FOLLOW S:- 'MR BINDRA OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE LAST TWO YEARS T HE ENTIRE INCOME FROM TV SUBSIDY RIGHTS HAS BEEN REFLECTED AS THE INCOME OF THE BOARD IN THE ACCOUNTS AND THAT THIS WAS WRONG PRESENTATION. ACCORDING TO HIM 70% OF THE INCOME FROM THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 28 OF 151 SALE OF TV RIGHTS BELONGS TO THE AFFILIATED UNITS A ND ONLY 30% OF THE TV RIGHTS REVENUE BELONGS TO THE BOARD. THE MEMBERS UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED THE VIEWS EXPRESSE D BY MR. I.S. BINDRA AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT 70% OF THE SALE OF TV RIGHTS BELONGS TO AFFILIATED UNITS AND THE BALANCE 30% IS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR THE CALCULATION FOR THE GROSS REVENUE SHARE TO THE PLAYERS FROM THE YEAR 2005-06. THE DEFINITION OF GROSS REVENUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT 20% DISTRIBUTION TO PLAYER IS AS FOLLOWS :- SALE OF SPONSORSHIP RIGHTS, EXCLUDING AGENTS, IF ANY. SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS INCLUDING TV (NET OF PRODU CTION COST) RADIO, INTERNET, MIDDLE MEDIA AND OTHER MECHANISM DESIGNATED TO UTI LISE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY EXCLUDING THE AGENTS FEES, IF ANY, AND SHARE OF ST ATE ASSOCIATIONS ETC...' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 9.8.3 AGM FOR FY 2007-08 THE TOTAL TV SUBSIDY AMOUNT PAYABLE TO ASSOCIATION S FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 IS RS. 3,71,89,46,858/-. IT WAS RESOLVED THAT 70% OF THE F RANCHISEE FEES RECEIVED WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO ASSOCIATIONS AS BCCI-IPL SUBVENTION. THE SUBVENTIONS PAYABLE TO ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE SEASON 2008 ARE AS UNDER :- STAGING: RS. 10 CRORES NON STAGING; RS. 7.21 CRORES THE TOTAL BCCI-IPL SUBVENTION PAYABLE TO ASSOCIAT IONS FOR THE SEASON 2008 IS RS. 202.60 CRORES 9.8.4 AGM FOR F.Y.2008-09 ITEM NO.4 - ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF TREASURER AN D THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/3/2009. THE HONY. TREASURER INFORMED THE HOUSE THE TV SUBSIDY TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO AFFILIATED UNITS WAS RS. 307 CRORES. IT WAS DECIDED TO DISTRIBUTE THE SURPLUS AFTER MEETING OF EXPENSES IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. RS. 10.53 CRORES TO THE ASSOCIATIONS WHO DID NOT ST AGE ANY INTERNATIONAL MATCH. RS. 33.3 CRORES TO ASSOCIATIONS WHO HAVE STAGE D AN ODI MATCH. RS. 14.27 CRORES TO THE ASSOCIATION WHO HAVE STAGED THE TEST MATCH. RS. 17 CRORES TO THE ASSOCIATION WHO HAVE STA GED BOTH ODI AND TEST MATCH. THE TOTAL SUBSIDY ON ACCOUNT OF IPL WAS RS. 202 CR ORES. HONY. TREASURER INFORMED THAT IN 2009 AS THE IPL MATCHES WERE PLAY ED IN SOUTH AFRICA ALL THE AFFILIATED UNITS WILL GET THE SAME SHARE OF RS. 8, 10,43,200/-. 9.8.5 AGM FOR F.Y.2009-10 ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 29 OF 151 THE HONY. SECRETARY ANNOUNCED THAT TV SUBSIDY IS D ISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS :- ALL THE ELIGIBLE MEMBERS WOULD GET EQUAL SHARES OF RS. 13.09 CRORES EACH AND IN ADDITION THE MEMBERS WHO STAGED INTERNATIONAL MATCH ES WOULD RECEIVE ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY AS UNDER :- ODI EACH RS. 2.47 CRORES TEST MATCH EACH RS. 3.30 CRORES T-20 INTERNATIONAL RS. 1.65 CRORES THE HONY. TREASURER FURTHER ANNOUNCED THAT IPL SUBS IDY FOR THE YEAR WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE ELIGIBLE MEMBERS AND THE AM OUNT IS RS. 8,10,43,2007- EACH. (ELIGIBLE ASSOCIATION ARE THE FULL TIME MEMBERS OF BCCI I.E. 25 IN NUMBER). 9.8.6 AGMFORF.Y.2010-11 MR. M.P PANDOVE THEN PLACED BEFORE THE HOUSE THE P ROPOSED AMOUNTS OF TV SUBSIDY AND IPL SUBVENTION PAYABLE LO ELIGIBLE ASS OCIATIONS. TV SUBSIDY EQUAL TO ELIGIBLE ASSOCIATION RS. 8.14 CRORES E ACH ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY TO ASSOCIATIONS STAGING ODI: R S. 2.31 CRORES EACH ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY TO ASSOCIATION STAGING TESTS: RS. 3.08 CRORES EACH IPL SUBVENTION TOTAL MONEY AVAILABLE FOR SUBVENTION RS. 429.08 CRO RES EQUAL DISTRIBUTION TO ALL ELIGIBLE ASSOCIATIONS RS. 17.16 CRORES EACH. HE ALSO INFORMED THE MEMBERS THAT AS PER THE PAST PRACTICE, ON SUB MISSION OF AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 FROM ASSO CIATIONS, THE SUBSIDIES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED. 9.9 (D) TREATMENT BY BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, SA URASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND GCA IN RESPECT OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM BCCI 9.9.1 IT IS NOTICED THAT BASED ON THE SAME ANNUAL REPORT, SAME MINUTES OF THE AGMS OF THE BCCI, THE RECEIPTS FROM BCCI TO SCAS HAVE BEEN REFLECTED DIFFERENTLY IN THEIR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY AT LEAST THREE SCAS THAT HAVE PRESENC E IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT VIZ. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND THE APPELLANT. THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IS ALREADY UNDER CONSIDERATION. B ARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION (BCA) FOR A.Y.2012-13 AND SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION FOR A.Y.2012-13 HAVE FILED APPEALS BEFORE ME. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO DISCUSSED WITH THE AR OF GCA. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION HAS TR EATED THE TV SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM BCCI AS CORPUS AND HAS TREATED IPL SUBVENTION RECEI VED FROM BCCI IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT UNLIKE GCA. FURTHER BCA HAS ALS O OFFERED SALE OF TICKETS OF ODI AS ITS INCOME AND HAVE PAID TAXES ON THE SAME. THE SAURASH TRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION ON THE OTHER HAND HAS REFLECTED SUBVENTION RECEIVED FROM BCCI AS ITS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SIMILARLY, THE TV SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM BCCI IS ALS O SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 30 OF 151 OTHER SOURCES AND HAS NOT TREATED THE SAME AS CORPU S LIKE GCA. SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION HAS REFLECTED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM BCCI UNDER THE INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEME AS ITS CORPUS WHEREAS GCA HAS TAKEN THIS AMOUNT TO BALANCE SHEET BUT NOT AS CORPUS. 9.9.2 THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT WITHIN GUJARAT THE THREE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS WHICH ARE FULL MEMBERS OF THE BCCI HAVE TREATED THE TV SUBSIDY, TH E IPL SUBVENTION AND THE FUNDS RECEIVED UNDER THE INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY SCHEME IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND MANNERS. THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY OTHER SCAS I.E. OUTSIDE OF GUJAR AT IS NOT KNOWN. THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF TAMIL NADU CRIC KET ASSOCIATION IS SILENT ON CORPUS ISSUE (REFERRED LATER). BCCI HAS ALSO NOT BOTHERED TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE VARIOUS CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS IN THEIR AUDITE D ACCOUNTS IS RIGHT OR WRONG. IN ITS AGMS, BCCI HAVE RESOLVED AGAIN AND AGAIN TO SEND THE FUND S UNDER THE TV SUBSIDY OR IPL SUBVENTION TO SCAS ONLY WHEN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS O F SCAS WOULD REACH THE BCCI. SO IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT BCCI WAS UNAWARE THAT DIFFERENT IAL TREATMENT WAS GIVEN BY VARIOUS CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS TO THESE RECEIPTS. IT CAN BE S EEN FROM THE VARIOUS ANNUAL REPORTS OF BCCI, MINUTES OF AGMS OF BCCI AS WELL AS THE SUBMIS SIONS OF BCCI IN ITS OWN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CONSISTENCY IN TH E STAND TAKEN BY BCCI. THE CONSISTENCY HAS BEEN ON THE MATTER THAT 70% OF THE RECEIPTS FRO M SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS AND IPL ACTIVITIES BELONG TO SCAS AND NOT TO BCCI. THE CONSISTENCY IS ON THE MATTER THAT BOTH THE RECEIPTS HAVE EMERGED OUT OF COMBINED EFFORTS OF BCCI & SCAS . THE CONSISTENCY IS ON THE ISSUE THAT BOTH THE RECEIPTS ARE FROM COMMERCIAL ACTIVITI ES AND FINALLY THE CONSISTENCY ON THE ISSUE THAT BOTH THE RECEIPTS ARE SIMPLY TRANSFERRED TO SCAS AS TV SUBSIDY AND IPL SUBVENTION. THERE IS NO WHISPER OF 'CORPUS' IN THE AGMS OF BCCI EXCEPT FOR ONE. IT IS THE SCAS WHO HAVE TREATED THEM IN DIFFERENT MANNER IN T HEIR OWN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PARA ABOVE. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NATURE OF RECEIPT, CHANGES, EVEN IF THE THREE SCAS IN GUJARAT ARE GIVI NG SEPARATE TREATMENT TO THESE RECEIPTS AS PER THEIR CONVENIENCE OR UNDERSTANDING. THUS, I HEREBY HOLD THAT THE TV SUBSIDY AND IPL SUBVENTION IS THE REVENUE RECEIPT OF THE APPELL ANT. THE ACTIVITY OF SELLING OF MEDIA RIGHTS BY THE BCCI & SCAS AND THE ACTIVITY OF CONDU CTING THE IPL ARE THE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. 10.1 FROM PARA 9.2 TO PARA 9.9 THE RELEVANT INFORMA TION WITH REGARD TO THE RECEIPT OF FUNDS FROM BCCI TO SCAS HAS BEEN REPRODUCED. BCCI AND SCA S ON THE ISSUES OF THEIR MANAGEMENT, BCCI & ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH SCAS, CONT ROVERSIES ON VENUES OF MATCHES, UNFORTUNATE INCIDENTS OF MATCH FIXING ETC. HAVE BEE N IN THE CENTER OF CONTROVERSIES. OTHERWISE THERE HAD BEEN NO REASON FOR THE INTERVEN TION FROM THE HON'BLE APEX COURT TO ORDER A VERY INTRUSIVE MANDATE TO THE LODHA COMMITT EE SET UP BY IT. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT BCCI IS MANAGED BY THE FULL MEMBERS. THE DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE WORKING COMMITTEE ARE THE DECISIONS WHICH ARE ENDORSED BY THE FULL MEMBER S. ALL THE FULL MEMBERS ARE EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE AND PARTNER IN THE DECISION MAKING PROC ESS. BCCI AND FULL MEMBERS JOINTLY TAKE EFFORTS FOR THE CRICKETING ACTIVITIES IN THE C OUNTRY. IT IS THE FULL MEMBERS WHO HAVE AUTHORIZED BCCI TO UNDERTAKE THE FIXATION OF TOUR P ROGRAMMES OR THE MATCHES AT INTERNATIONAL AS WELL AS DOMESTIC LEVEL. THAT INCLU DES, TEST MATCHES, ODI, T20 MATCHES, ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 31 OF 151 RANJI TROPHY, DEODHAR TROPHY, DULEEP TROPHY, VIJAY HAZARE TROPHY MATCHES ETC. IN THE PROCESS IT IS THE SCAS THAT PROVIDE AND FACILITATE THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THESE MATCHES. ALTHOUGH THE MATCHES ARE ALLOTTED BY BCCI, IT IS AL WAYS ON BEHALF OF THE FULL MEMBERS OF BCCI. 10.2.1 IT IS THE FULL MEMBERS WHO HAVE DECIDED ON T HE INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEME OF THE BCCI. THE MAIN REASON FOR THE DEVELOPING THE SCHEME IS TO FURTHER ENABLE THE SCAS TO HOLD MATCHES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION. 10.2.2 INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEME IS THE SCHEME OF BCCI THAT ENCOURAGES ITS AFFILIATED UNITS TO CREATE INFRASTRUCTURE BOTH FOR INTERNATIONAL AND DO MESTIC CRICKETING ACTIVITIES. THE SCHEME IS OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY STATE ASSOCIATION ON INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS A WELL DOCUMENTED SCHEME AND THE ITEMS OF EXPENDITURES THAT ARE REIMBURSABLE HAVE BEEN LISTED BY BCCI FOR THE SCAS. THE SUBSIDY AVAILABLE UNDER THE SCHEME IS 50% OF THE EXPENDITUR E ACTUALLY INCURRED. THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH EXPENDITURE CAN BE INCURRED HAS VARIED F ROM YEAR TO YEAR BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE FULL MEMBERS OF BCCI. THE INFRASTRUCTURE SUB SIDY SCHEME IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES UP TO 50% INCURRED BY THE SAID CRICKET ASSOCIATION. 10.3 VARIOUS ANNUAL REPORTS THROW A LIGHT ON HOW TH E REVENUE FROM MEDIA RIGHTS HAVE GONE UP SUBSTANTIVELY. THE FACTS AND FIGURES HAVE A LREADY BEEN MENTIONED ABOVE. IN FY 2010-11 THE BCCI HAD EARNED REVENUE FROM MEDIA RIGH TS THAT COMPRISED OF MORE THAN 50% OF ITS GROSS INCOME. AS FAR AS IPL IS CONCERNED, BC CI HAS ALWAYS ACCEPTED IN ITS ANNUAL REPORTS THAT IT IS ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL COMME RCIAL PRODUCT/VENTURE/MODEL LAUNCHED BY IT. SCAS ARE ALSO EQUAL PARTNER IN THE SAID ACTIVIT Y. FOR THIS PRECISE REASON BCCI HAS ALWAYS EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED THE REVENUE FROM IPL ACTIVITY A MONGST ALL ITS FULL MEMBERS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR SCA HAS BEEN ABLE TO STAGE A MATCH OR NOT. IN FACT, NO SCA CAN REFUSE THE BCCI FROM HOLDING MATCH AT ITS VENUE FOR THE REASON OF EXPECTATION OF REVENUE. LOGISTICS OF THE FULL MEMBERS IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE W ITH BCCI FOR THE IPL ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE PURELY COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. 10.4 FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF BCCI, THE RELEVANT PART WHICH IS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS DISCERNIBLE THAT TH E BCCI AND SCAS JOINTLY HOLD ALL THE CRICKETING ACTIVITIES IN THE COUNTRY. FOR A SMOOTH CONDUCT OF THE ACTIVITIES THE FULL MEMBERS HAVE DEVELOPED A 'ROTATION POLICY' IN THE BCCI. THE EXISTENCE OF ROTATION POLICY IS ADMITTED BY THE BCCI. ACCORDING TO BCCI THE ARRANG EMENTS OF CONDUCTING CRICKETING ACTIVITIES HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME AND ARE BASED ON THE COOPERATION AND UNITY AMONGST THE SCAS. 10.5 THE BASIS FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF TV SUBSIDY AND THE IPL SUBVENTION FROM BCCI TO SCAS IS SAME. THE BCCI, ITSELF HAS NOT TREATED THAT THESE FUNDS BELONG TO IT. BCCI HAS MENTIONED IN ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007 -08 THAT RS. 203 CRORES OF IPL SUBVENTIONS BEING 70% OF FRANCHISEE FEES WAS PROPOSED TO BE GIVEN AS SUBVENTION TO SCAS. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 32 OF 151 THIS IS APPARENT FROM SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE BCCI TO ITS AO AS WELL AS FROM THE DECISION TAKEN DURING THE AGMS. BCCI HAS CATEGORIC ALLY MENTIONED TO ITS AO AS FOLLOWS: 'IN RESPECT OF REVENUES FROM SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS, AN ARRANGEMENT HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME. UNTIL 1991-92 THE INCOME FROM MEDIA RIGHTS WAS MEAG ER. WITH THE GROWTH IN INCOME FROM MEDIA RIGHTS, IT BECAME NECESSARY TO OPTIMIZE THE ARRANGEMENT FOR SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS. FOR A TEST SERIES OR ODI SERIES CONDUCTED IN MULTIPLE C ENTERS AND ORGANISED BY BCCI AND MULTIPLE STATE ASSOCIATIONS, IT WAS FOUND THAT IF E ACH STATE ASSOCIATION WERE TO NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF RIGHTS TO EVENTS IN ITS CENTRE, ITS NEGOTI ATING STRENGTH WOULD BE LOW. IT WAS, THEREFORE, AGREED THAT BCCI WOULD NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY TO OPTIMIZE THE INCOME UNDER THIS HEAD. IT WAS FURT HER DECIDED THAT OUT OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS 70% OF THE GROSS REVENUE L ESS PRODUCTION COST WOULD BELONG TO THE STATE ASSOCIATIONS. EVERY YEAR, BCCI HAS PAID OUT E XACTLY 70% OF ITS RECEIPTS FROM MEDIA RIGHTS (LESS PRODUCTION COST) TO THE STATE ASSOCIA TIONS.' 10.6 IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF BCCI AS MENTIONED ABOVE THAT IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING MATCHES SUCH AS TEST/ODI AND INCLUDING I PL THE SCAS INCUR EXPENSES. FURTHER, THE BCCI HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT THERE IS N EED TO HAVE FAIR AND EQUITABLE SHARING OF REVENUES AND THE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME. THE SHARE IN MEDIA RIGHTS PERTAINS TO TIME PERIOD AND NOT TO A PARTICULAR MAT CH. THE MATCHES ARE NEVER PLAYED IN ISOLATION BUT ARE ALWAYS IN A TEST/ODI SERIES. IT I S JOINT ORGANISATION OF AN EVENT OVER A TIME BY BCCI AND THE SCAS. BCCI HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SC AS ARE ENTITLED TO THESE REVENUE RECEIPTS. FURTHER THE BCCI HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT I T WAS AGREED AMONGST ALL THE SCAS THAT BCCI WOULD BE NEGOTIATING THE MEDIA RIGHTS ON THEIR BEHALF TO OPTIMISE THE REVENUE AND THE BCCI HAS ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS DECIDED WITH THE S CAS THAT 70% OF NET REVENUE WOULD BELONG TO THE SCAS. ACCORDING TO BCCI, IN EXPECTATI ON OF THESE REVENUE RECEIPTS THE SCAS ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE CRICKETING ACTIVITIES. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN EVOLVED TO SHARE THE REVENUE FROM THE JOINT AC TIVITY OF SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS ON 70:30 BASIS. THIS POSITION HAS BEEN MADE AMPLY CLEAR BY M R. I.S. BINDRA, THE THEN PRESIDENT OF BCCI DURING THE AGM FOR F.Y.2005-06. AT ITEM NO.4 O F THE MINUTES IT IS STATED AS FOLLOWS:- 'MR BINDRA OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE LAST TWO YEARS THE ENTIRE INCOME FROM TV SUBSIDY RIGHTS HAS BEEN REFLECTED AS THE INCOME OF THE BOARD IN THE ACCOUNTS AND THAT THIS WAS WRONG PRESENTATION. ACCORDING TO HIM 70% OF THE INCOME FROM THE SALE OF TV RIGHTS BELONGS TO THE AFFILIATED UNITS A ND ONLY 30% OF THE TV RIGHTS REVENUE BELONGS TO THE BOARD. THE MEMBERS UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED THE VIEWS EXPRESSE D BY MR I. S. BINDRA AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT 70% OF THE SALE OF TV RIGHTS BELONGS TO AFFILIATED UNITS AND THE BALANCE 30% IS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR THE CALCULATION FOR THE GROSS REVENUE SHARE TO THE PLAYERS FROM THE YEAR 2005-06. ' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 10.7 FROM ABOVE MINUTES THE POSITION BECOMES CLEAR IN RESPECT OF TO WHOM THESE RECEIPTS BELONG TO 70% IS THAT OF SCAS AND 30% IS THAT OF BC CI. AS THE RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 33 OF 151 MEDIA RIGHTS WERE THAT OF BCCI AS WELL AS SCAS, SIM ILARLY THE INCOME FROM THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OF IPL IS THE JOINT INCOME OF BCCI AND SCA /FULL/ELIGIBLE MEMBERS. IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE MINUTES OF VARIOUS AGMS THAT DISTRIBUTION OF THE REVENUE FROM MEDIA RIGHTS AS WELL AS IPL SUBVENTION ARE PART OF THE SAME AGENDA ITEM. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE NET MEDIA RIGHTS REVENUE, IS SHARED BY ALL SCAS AS WELL AS AN EXTRA SHARE OF REVENUE GOES TO THOSE SCAS STAGING THE MATCHES WHEREAS THE IPL REVE NUE IS SHARED EQUALLY AMONGST ALL THE SCAS. THE BCCI KEEPS 30% OF THE NET REVENUE WITH IT SELF. IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE VARIOUS ANNUAL REPORTS OF BCCI, MINUTES OF AGMS OF BCCI AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF BCCI IN ITS OWN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CONSISTENCY IN THE STAND TAKEN BY IT. THE CONSISTENCY HAS BEEN ON THE MATTER THAT 70% OF THE RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS AND IPL ACTIVITIES BELONG TO SCAS AND NOT TO BCCI. THE CONSISTENCY IS ON THE MATTER THAT BOTH THE RECEIPTS HAVE EMERGED OUT OF COMBINED EFFO RTS OF BCCI & SCAS; THAT BOTH THE RECEIPTS ARE FROM COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AND FINALLY , THAT BOTH THE RECEIPTS ARE SIMPLY TRANSFERRED TO SCAS AS TV SUBSIDY AND IPL SUBVENTIO N AS THEIR SHARE AND NOT AS CORPUS. IT IS THE SCAS WHO HAVE TREATED THEM IN DIFFERENT FASH ION IN THEIR OWN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NATURE OF RECE IPT CHANGES. 10.8 THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT 'RECEIPTS FROM BCCI ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF MEDIA RIGHTS AS WELL AS THE RECEIPTS FROM IPL AC TIVITIES ARE IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE INCOME OF THE GCA/APPELLANT'. THESE RECEIPTS REPRES ENT 70% OF SHARE OF THE NET INCOME. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE FROM THE AC TIVITIES THAT ARE PURELY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE AND BUSINESS OR FROM ACTIVITIES OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE. 13. ON MATERIALLY SIMILAR LINES, THE APPEALS OF THE TWO OTHER CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE US, I.E. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND SAUR ASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, WERE ALSO DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT SATISFIED BY THE CONSISTENT STAND SO TAKEN BY THE CIT(A)S AND ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US . RIVAL CONTENTIONS: 14. SHRI S N SOPARKAR, LEARNED SR ADVOCATE, OPENED THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. LEARNED COUNSEL BEGINS BY INVITING OU R ATTENTION TO THE WORDINGS OF SECTION 2 (15), AND POINTING OUT THAT THE SO FAR AS RESIDUARY CLAUSE IN THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTION, I.E. ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, IS ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 34 OF 151 CONCERNED, SUCH OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTIL ITY WILL CEASE TO BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY ONLY WHEN IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR WHEN IT INVOLVES ANY ACTI VITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A C ESS, FEES OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. ESSENTIALLY, THEREFORE, THE EMPHASI S IS ON THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY AND NOTHING ELSE. THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY US, THEREFORE, REALLY IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE U S INVOLVE TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. IN THIS BACKDROP, WE WERE TAKEN TO THE OB JECT CLAUSES OF THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. AN EFFORT WAS MADE TO DEMONSTRATE THA T EACH AND EVERY ACTIVITY PURSUED BY THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE US WAS FOR PROMO TION OF CRICKET. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE OBJECT OF THE ASSOC IATION WHICH DOES NOT DEAL WITH PROMOTION OF CRICKET. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT ALL THE CRICKET MATCHES UNDER THE INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE AS INDEED THE OTHER CRICKET MATCHES, SUCH AS ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL MATCHES AND THE INTERNATIONAL TEST MATCHES, ARE ORGANIZED BY THE BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL OF IN DIA (BCCI) AND NOT BY THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE US. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ENTIRE CASE OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS THAT THESE TEST MATCHES ARE ORGANIZED ON THE COMMER CIAL LINES, AND, FOR THIS REASON, THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE US MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), BUT THEN, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, WHAT THIS ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS IS THE FACT THAT NO SUCH ACTIVITIES OF ORGANIZING THE MATCHES ARE CARRIED ON BY THE LOCAL CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. THEREFORE, GOING BY THE LEARN ED COUNSEL, IF AT ALL THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS TO LEAD TO SOME LOGIC AL CONCLUSION IN RESPECT OF THE ORGANIZING BODIES, THAT IS IN RESPECT OF THE BCCI A ND NOT THE LOCAL CRICKET ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 35 OF 151 ASSOCIATIONS. HE HASTENS TO ADD THAT AS HE IS REPRE SENTING A LOCAL CRICKET ASSOCIATION, HE NEED NOT ADDRESS HIMSELF TO THIS LARGER ISSUE AB OUT CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF EVEN THE ALLEGATIONS. IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FRO M THE BENCH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT EVEN IF IT IS CORRECT THA T THE ASSESSEE IS AN AFFILIATE OF THE BCCI, SO FAR AS TAXATION OF INCOME IS CONCERNED, TH E ASSESSEE IS AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT UNIT AND THE ACTIONS OF THE BCCI CANNOT VITIATE THE ASSESSMENTS OF ITS AFFILIATES. THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH COULD ENABLE THE ASSESSMENT OF AN ENTITY BEING INFLUENCED BY THE ACTIONS OR INA CTIONS OF ANOTHER GROUP ENTITY. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE N ATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. HE POINTS OUT THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE ON ACCOUN T OF LOCAL CRICKET TOURNAMENTS, DISTRICT CRICKET EXPENSES FOR PROMOTION OF CRICKET IN THE DISTRICTS ASSIGNED TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSOCIATION, SEMINAR, TRAINING, MEETING, EXHIBITION ETC FOR COACHES, UMPIRES, TRAINERS, PHYSIOTHERAPISTS, SCORERS AND OT HER SUPPORTING STAFF, JUNIOR CRICKET EXPENSES FOR YOUNGSTERS BELOW THE AGE OF BELOW 12 Y EARS, BELOW 14 YEARS, BELOW 16 YEARS AND BELOW 19 YEARS PLAY IN VARIOUS TOURNAMENT S ORGANIZED BY THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, SENIOR CRICKETING EXPENSES INCURRED I N PARTICIPATION IN MATCHES ORGANIZED BY THE ASSOCIATIONS AND BY THE BCCI, SPOR TS MATERIAL, PRIZE DISTRIBUTION, WOMENS CRICKET, GROUND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, FEES PAID TO PROFESSIONALS WHOSE SERVICES WERE USED BY THE ASSOCIATIONS, AND ALL OTH ER ESTABLISHMENT AND OTHER RELATED EXPENDITURE. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT SINCE ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRICKET, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTL Y CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11. HE SUBMITS THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WILL NOT COME INTO PLAY ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 36 OF 151 SINCE THESE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF BUS INESS, TRADE OR COMMERCE. LEARNED COUNSEL REITERATES THAT TRIGGER FOR INVOKING PROVIS O TO SECTION 2(15) CAN ONLY BE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT OF ANYONE OTHER TH AN THE ASSESSEE. HE THEN REEMPHASIZES THAT ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSE E CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS ARE FOR PROMOTION OF CRICKET AND NOT FOR ANY TRADE, COMMERC E OR BUSINESS AND NOT EVEN ORGANIZING THE MATCHES WITH COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIO NS AS IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 15. LEARNED COUNSEL THE TOUCHES A DIFFERENT CHORD. HE SUBMITS THAT THE EXPRESSION EDUCATION, IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 2 (15), IS REQUIRED TO BE INTERPRETED IN A BROADER SENSE RATHER THAN CONFINING IT TO THE FORMAL EDUCATION IN PURE ARTS AND HUMANITIES OR SCIENCE AND COMMERCE IN SCHOOLS AND C OLLEGES. HE SUBMITS THAT WE ARE LIVING IN A WORLD IN WHICH THE CONNOTATIONS OF EDU CATION EXTEND TO THE SKILLS THAT CAN EARN LIVELIHOOD, AND RIGHTLY SO, SINCE KEEPING THE EDUCATION CONFINED TO TRADITIONAL SUBJECTS WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE VALUES OF THE CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT CRICKET, AS A CAREER, HAS MORE POTEN TIAL THAN PERHAPS ANY OTHER TRADITIONAL SUBJECT OR EVEN ANY OTHER FIELD OF ART, AND, THEREFORE, EDUCATION IN CRICKET CANNOT BE RELEGATED TO INSIGNIFICANCE BY NOT TREATI NG IT AS EDUCATION AT ALL. HE SUBMITS THAT PHYSICAL EDUCATION IS ALSO EDUCATION, AND CRICKET IS A PART OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION. LEARNED COUNSEL THAN TAKES US THROUGH TH E JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT ST ATE COOPERATIVE UNION VS CIT [(1992) 195 ITR 279 (GUJ)], WHEREIN ELABORATING UPO N HONBLE SUPREME COURTS OBSERVATIONS IN THE CASE OF LOK SHIKSHA TRUST VS CI T [(1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)], ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 37 OF 151 THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE GIVEN MUCH WIDER A MEANING TO THE CONNOTATIONS OF EDUCATION, AND OBSERVED THAT EDUCATION SURELY W OULD ENCOMPASS SYSTEMATIC DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING IN SPECIALI ZED SUBJECTS AND THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO NAIL DOWN THE CONCEPT OF EDUCATION TO A PARTICULAR FORMULA OR TO FLOW IT ONLY THROUGH A DEFINED CHANNEL; ITS PROGRESS LIES I N THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW IDEAS AND DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE MEANS TO REACH THEM TO T HE RECIPIENTS. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION [(2014) 366 ITR 85 (GUJ)], ON THE SAME LINES, WHEREIN IT IS HEL D THAT CONDUCTING CONTINUING EDUCATION DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE PROGRAM, MANAGEME NT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, PUBLIC TALK, SEMINARS AND CONFERENCES ETC ARE EDUCA TIONAL ACTIVITIES. IT IS THUS CONTENDED THAT DEVELOPMENT OF CRICKET IS AN EDUCATI ONAL ACTIVITY, AND, AS IT IS AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY, PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE MATTER. THE WHOLE CASE OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS THUS ILL C ONCEIVED. 16. IT IS THEN CONTENDED THAT WHETHER OR NOT CRICKE T ASSOCIATIONS CAN BE ALLOWED THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 11, AND WHETHER SECTION 2(1 5) WILL COME INTO PLAY IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA . THERE ARE LARGE NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES, AS ALSO FROM CERTAIN NON-JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURTS AS WELL. LEARNED COUNSEL REFERS TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE M ADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. DIRECTOR OF INCO ME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) [2014] 360 ITR 633 (MAD), DECISION OF ITAT CHENNAI BENCH A IN THE CASE OF TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) [2015] 42 ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 38 OF 151 ITR (T) 546 (CHENNAI-TRIB.), JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE R AJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VS. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION [2018] 98 TAXMANN.COM 425 (RAJASTHAN), ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2(3), JAIPUR [2017] 79 TAXMANN.COM 464 (JAI PUR) [2017] 164 ITD 212 (JAIPUR.), ORDER OF ITAT PUNE BENCH A IN THE CASE OF MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, PUNE [2015] 152 ITD 1 (PUNE - TRIB.), ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF S AURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT [2014] 148 ITD 58 (RJT) ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH A IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION [2015] 62 TAXMANN.COM 362 (DELHI - TRIB. ) [2015] 43 ITR(T) 656 (DEL), AND ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH SMC IN THE CASE OF DAHISAR SPORTS FOUNDATION VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS)-(1), MUMBAI [20 17] 167 ITD 710 (MUM). THE COMMON THREAD IN ALL THESE DECISIONS, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, IS THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT A CASE WAS MADE OUT IN ALL TH ESE CASES FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 2(15) BY INVOKING THE PROVISO TO THE SAID SUB SECTION AND BY ALLEGING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE CRICKET ASSOCIATI ONS WAS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS HA VE BEEN HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND THAT PROVISO TO SECT ION 2(15) HAS BEEN HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THESE CASES. HE SUGGESTS THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THESE CRICKET AS SOCIATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR CLAIMS FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECT ION 11. WE ARE THUS URGED TO ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 39 OF 151 UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, TO HOLD THAT THE P ROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WAS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THESE CASES. 17. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN REFERS TO AND RELIES UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS ACIT [(2017) 396 ITR 323 (GUJ)] AND CIT VS GUJAR AT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [(2017) 83 TAXMANN.COM 366 (GUJ)] IN SU PPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN THE NAT URE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) CANNOT BE INVOKED. OUR ATT ENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN T HE CASE OF TRIBUNE TRIST VS CIT [(2017) 390 ITR 547 (GUJ)] ON THE SAME LINES AN D WHEREIN A SERIES OF DECISIONS BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL, HOLDING THAT SECTION 2(15) CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE CASES OF CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUSTS EVE N THOUGH THERE IS A SALE OF DEVELOPED PLOTS AND SUCH OTHER ACTIVITIES BY THESE TRUSTS. IT IS CONTENDED THAT JUST BECAUSE THE SALE IS ON THE BASIS OF GROUND REALITIE S AND IS NOT SUBSIDIZED IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN BUSINESS, TRADE OR COM MERCE. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT MERELY BECAUSE A SURPLUS IS GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FACT OF GENERATING SURPLUS WOULD NOT CONVERT A CHARITABLE A CTIVITY INTO A NON-CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, LEARNED C OUNSEL RELIED UPON HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS SABARMATI GAUSHALA TRUST [(2014) 362 ITR 539 (GUJ)]. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 40 OF 151 18. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN REFERS TO THE JUDICIAL PRE CEDENTS RELIED UPON, BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, TO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. AS REGARDS THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF JALANDHAR DEVELOPME NT AUTHORITY - 124 TTJ 598 (AMRITSAR) AND IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT [2013] 30 TAXMANN.COM 58 (AMRITSAR)] HE SUBMITS THAT THESE DECISION STAND REVERSED BY TH E HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TRIBUNE (SUPRA). AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF TAMILNADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS DIT [2013] 32 TAXC MANN.COM 50 (CHENNAI), LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THIS DECISION WAS ALSO REVERSED BY THE RESPECTIVE HIGH COURT I.E. HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAMILNADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS CIT [(2014) 360 ITR 633 (MAD)]. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE DECISION OF MADRAS SPORTS CLUB VS DIT [(2013) 30 TAXMANN.COM 13 0 (CHENNAI)] IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS THE DISPUTE IN THAT CASE WAS CONFINED TO THE QUANTUM OF RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 2(45 ) RATHER THAN APPLICATION OF SECTION 2(15). ON THE ENTERTAINMENT SOCIETY OF GOA VS. CIT [2013] 34 TAXMANN.COM 210 (PANAJI), LEARNED COUNSEL POINTS OUT THAT THIS DECISION HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED BY ANOTHER COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF RA JASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION (SUPRA). SIMILARLY, AS REGARDS PUNJAB SEED CERTIFIC ATION AUTHORITY VS CIT [(2013) 37 TAXMANN.COM 81 (CHANDIGARH)], OUR ATTENTION WAS INV ITED TO THE FACT THAT THIS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT IS DISTINGUISHED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS VS DGIT [(2013) 358 ITR 78 (DEL)]. ON THE STRENGTH OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE JUD ICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE OF NOT OF ANY SUPPORT TO THE REVENUES CASE. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 41 OF 151 19. SHRI MEHUL PATEL, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, GRACIOUSLY ADOPTS THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SHRI SO PARKAR, AND SAYS THERE CAN BE LITTLE TO ADD TO THESE COMPREHENSIVE ARGUMENTS. HE, NEVERTHELESS, REITERATES THOSE POINTS. HE SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE OBJECTS OF ASSE SSEE INSTITUTION, IT IS ENGAGED IN (I) PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GAME OF CRICKET; ( II) EDUCATION FOR CRICKETERS FOR LEARNING INTRICACIES OF GAME OF CRICKET BY PLAYING MATCHES AND RUNNING A COACHING ACADEMY FOR TEACHING THE FINER ASPECTS OF THE GAME TO THE BUDDING CRICKETERS. LEARNED COUNSEL HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT APPELLANT CARRIES OUT VARIOUS ACTIVITIES FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAME OF CRIC KET IN GUJARAT. ITS ACTIVITIES SPAN THE ENTIRE YEAR IN THE CONDUCT OF CRICKET PROM OTION RELATED ACTIVITIES. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPELLANT EMPLOYED VARIOUS COA CHES, DOCTORS, PHYSIO TRAINERS, PITCH CURATORS, RENOWNED PLAYERS AND UMPIRES FOR TH E PURPOSES OF IMPARTING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO BUDDING PLAYERS, AND THAT T HESE COACHES/ TRAINERS ARE PAID FEES FOR IMPARTING THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE GAM E. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE CONDUCTS VARIOUS CLASSES FOR AUDIO VISUAL TEACHING, MENTAL TOUGHNESS, YOGA, MOTIVATION, FITNESS ETC. THERE ARE VARIOUS OBJECT CLAUSES IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE APPELLANT WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE APPELLANT ALSO CONDUCTS VARIOUS MATCHES LIKE UNDER 23, UNDER 19, UNDER 16, UNDER 14, WOMEN CRICKET ETC WHI CH ARE AT OWN COST AND FREE FOR VIEWERS AND NO TICKETS ARE SOLD FOR THE SAME. THE A SSESSEE ALSO SUPPORTS AND BEARS THE EXPENSES OF 8 DISTRICTS ACROSS THE STATE OF GUJ ARAT AND SIMILAR ACADEMY IS RUN BY ALL THE DISTRICTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLA NT IS ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAME OF CRICKET. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HIS GAME IS NOT MERELY A PLEASURE GAME ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 42 OF 151 TODAY AND THAT THE EVER GROWING POPULARITY OF CRICK ET IN INDIA HAS CHANGED THE SCENARIO COMPLETELY. CRICKET IS NOW BEING PURSUED AS A CAREER. THIS IS EVIDENCED THROUGH THE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF CRICKET COACHI NG INSTITUTES AND SUMMER CAMPS WHICH ARE SEEN EVERY NOOK AND CORNER OF THE COUNTRY . THIS BEING THE CASE, IT IS A FORM OF EDUCATION GIVEN TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WI SH PURSUE THIS GAME AS THEIR PROFESSION OR CAREER. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THA T THE LEARNED COUNSEL SEEKS TO RELY ON HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE CO- OPERATIVE UNION V. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 279 (GUJ) THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD, INTER ALIA, THAT THE CHANGING TIME AND THE EVER WIDENING HORIZONS OF KNOWLEDGE MAY BRING IN CHANGES IN THE METHODOLOGY O F TEACHING AND A SHIFT FOR THE BETTER IN THE INSTITUTIONAL SETUP. ADVANCEMENT OF K NOWLEDGE BRING WITHIN ITS FOLD SUITABLE METHODS OF ITS DISSEMINATION AND THOUGH TH E PRIMARY METHOD OF SITTING IN A CLASS-ROOM MAY REMAIN IDEAL FOR MOST OF THE INITIAL EDUCATION, IT MAY BECOME NECESSARY TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTLOOK FOR FURTHER E DUCATION. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO NAIL DOWN THE CONCEPT OF EDUCATION TO A PARTICULAR FORMU LA OR TO FLOW IT ONLY THROUGH A DEFINED CHANNEL. ITS PROGRESS LIES IN ACCEPTANCE OF NEW IDEAS AND DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE MEANS TO REACH THEM TO THE RECIPIENTS. A REFERENCE IS THEN MADE TO HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) V. AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 36 6 ITR 85(GUJ) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE REFERRED TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE LOK SHIKSHAN TRUST (SUPRA) AND HAVE HELD T HAT EDUCATION UNDER SECTION 2(15) DOES NOT HAVE A RESTRICTED MEANING WHEREBY ON LY NORMAL SCHOOLING I.E. SCHOLASTIC EDUCATION IS COVERED. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 2(15) COVERS ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 43 OF 151 EDUCATION WHICH IS PROVIDED IN NON-SCHOLASTIC MANNE R ALSO. A REFERENCE IS THEN MADE TO HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DELHI MU SIC SOCIETY 357 ITR 265(DELHI) WHEREIN IT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN HELD THAT TEACHING AND PROMOTING ALL FORMS OF MUSIC AND DANCE, WESTERN, INDIAN, AND ANY OTHER ACCORDING TO THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST IS ALSO IMPARTING OF EDUCATION. ON THE STRENGTH OF THE SE ARGUMENTS, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN IMPARTING OF EDUCATION A ND HENCE, THE AMENDED PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WEF 1.4.2009 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, AND EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 20. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN SUBMITS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS BASIC STAND THAT AS PROMOTING CRICKET IS AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY, PROVI SO TO SECTION 2(15) CANNOT BE INVOKED AT ALL, IT IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY THAT IS TO BE TREATED AS ADVANCEMENT OF OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE APPELLANT IS COVERED WITHIN THE LAST LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE UNDER SECTION 2(15) WHICH INCLUDE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THO UGH PROMOTION OF GAMES LIKE CRICKET MAY NOT BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE ENTIRE MANKI ND, THE PROMOTION OF CRICKET IS ADVANTAGEOUS TO A SECTION OF THE SOCIETY WHICH PLAY S, FOLLOWS AND ENJOYS IT. THIS HAS BEEN STATUTORILY ACKNOWLEDGED BY CIRCULAR NO.395 DA TED 24.9.1984 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. IT IS CONTENDED THA T THIS ASPECT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS CONCURRED THAT THE APPELL ANT IS COVERED WITHIN THE LAST LIMB OF THE DEFINITION IN SECTION 2(15) AND THAT TH E DISPUTE IS CONFINED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS COVERED WITHIN THE GAMUT O F FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WHICH READS AS PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF AN Y OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 44 OF 151 UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT IN VOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR AN Y ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY. LEARNED COUNSEL CONTEND S THAT THE AFORESAID PROVISO WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 2008. THE PROVISO AIMS TO REDUCE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 2(15) BY NARROWING DOWN THE OBJECTS FALLING THEREUNDER, IT SEEKS TO PROVIDE THAT THE OBJECTS FOR ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY I NVOLVING COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WILL NOT BE CHARITABLE ANY LONGER. THE PROVISO IS THERE FORE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE FOURTH LIMB OF SECTION 2(15). THE FIRST THREE LIMBS ARE U NAFFECTED BY THE PROVISO. THIS HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 11 OF 2008 DATED 19.12.2009; THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2.1 THE NEWLY INSERTED PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WI LL NOT APPLY IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST THREE LIMBS OF SECTION 2(15) I.E. RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION OR MEDICAL RELIEF. CONSEQUENTLY, WHERE THE PURPOSE OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION OR MEDICAL RELIEF, IT WILL CONSTITUTE CHARITABLE PURPOSE, EVEN IF IT INCIDENTALLY INVOLVES THE CARRY ING ON OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. 21. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS INVOLVED IN CRICKET COACHING AND PROMOTION WHICH IS A FORM OF EDUCATION AND THEREB Y QUALIFYING ITSELF AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 2(15). SINC E THE APPELLANT IS CARRYING ON AN ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 45 OF 151 EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CO UNSEL, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) IS NOT APPLICABLE. 22. LEARNED COUNSEL ADDS THAT, ASSUMING WITHOUT ADM ITTING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES BUT IS INVOLVED IN ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, THE SUB MISSIONS ARE MADE WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF THE AFORESAID PROVISO IN THE PRESE NT CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE A PPELLANT IS NOT A CHARITABLE ORGANISATION AS PER THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE P URPOSE UNDER SECTION 2(15) READ WITH PROVISOS THEREUNDER. THE LEARNED OFFICER ARRIVED AT THIS CONCLUSION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: A) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLA NT RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL MATCH INCOME (WHICH INCLUDES SALE OF SP ACE, TICKET SALE ETC). THE APPELLANT IS THUS CONCLUDED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS OF ENTERTAINMENT OF PUBLIC AT LARGE BY ARRANGING NATIONAL AND INTERNATI ONAL TOURNAMENTS. B) THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUB STANTIATE THAT ACTIVITY OF CONDUCTING CRICKET MATCHES IS NOT A BUSINESS ACT IVITY WAS DISTINGUISHED ON FACTS. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 46 OF 151 C) RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE CALCUTTA HIGH CO URT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL V CIT (1959) 37 ITR 277 (CAL) ROLE OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT WISHES TO SUBMIT THAT THE IMPUGNED MATCH INCOME ARISES FROM INTERNATIONAL MATCHES AND MATCH ES ALLOTTED UNDER INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE (IPL). THE APPELLANT HAS NO ROLE TO PLAY IN FIXING THE MATCH, MUCH LESS THE PLAYERS, THE OPPONENT COUNTRY, DATES OF MATCH, UMPIRES AND OTHER RELATED LOGISTICS. ALL THESE ARE WITHIN THE CONTROL OF BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA (BCCI). THE APPELLA NT IS AN AFFILIATE OF BCCI WHICH IS THE NATIONAL GOVERNING BODY FOR CRICKET IN INDIA. IT IS ONE OF THE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH MAY GET THE PRIVILEGE OF HOSTIN G A CRICKET TEST OR ONE DAY INTERNATIONALS. THE INTERNATIONAL MATCHES ARE ALLO TTED TO THE APPELLANT BY THE BCCI AT ITS DISCRETION. THE PETITIONER HAS NO INHE RENT RIGHT TO DEMAND THE ALLOTMENT OF SUCH MATCHES TO BE CONDUCTED BY IT. I PL MATCHES ARE NOT CONDUCTED BY THE PETITIONER. IPL MATCHES ARE ORGAN IZED AND CONDUCTED BY THE FRANCHISEES AND APPELLANT ONLY GETS RENT FOR PROVID ING THE GROUND. THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AFFILIATED TO THE BCCI HAS TO MA KE AVAILABLE THE STADIUM AT THE INSTANCE OF BCCI AND IT HAS NO DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AS TO THE SCHEDULE / CONDUCT OF THESE MATCHES. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 47 OF 151 THE FREQUENCY OF THE MATCHES IS VERY LOW. EXCEPT FO R INTERNATIONAL MATCHES, IN CASE OF ALL OTHER MATCHES THERE ARE NO FEES OR C HARGES COLLECTED FROM THE SPECTATORS. APART FROM THE INTERNATIONAL MATCHES, THE APPELLANT HAS CONDUCTED MANY MATCHES AT STATE LEVEL. NO FEES HAVE BEEN CHARGED I N SUCH MATCHES. THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT IS TO PROMOTE AND DEVELOP THE GAME OF CRICKET IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. NONE OF THE OBJEC TS OF THE APPELLANT ARE COMMERCIAL OR IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OR TRADE AN D ALL THE ACTIVITIES ARE UNDERTAKEN WITH A SOLE VIEW TO PROMOTE CRICKET AND NOT TO CARRY ON ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINE SS. MEANING OF PROFIT GENERATING ACTIVITY THE LEARNED OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN PROFIT GENERATING ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE INELIGIBLE TO BE TERMED AS CHARITABLE ORGANISATION THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY TO BE REGARDED AS CHARITABLE IN NATURE WAS NOT TO INVOLVE THE CARRY ING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY OF PROFIT. IN OTHER WORDS, PROFIT MAKING IS A PRECOND ITION TO DENY EXEMPTION TO THE CONCERNED ENTITY. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF SURAT ART SILKS ORGANISATION V CIT (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC) HELD THAT A CHARITABLE ORGANISATION CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO BALANCE ITS ACCOUNT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE INCOME ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 48 OF 151 FOR THE YEAR MATCHES EXACTLY WITH THE EXPENDITURE. INCIDENTAL GENERATION OF ANY SURPLUS IN THE COURSE OF ONES ACTIVITY WITHOUT AN INTENTION TO MAKE PROFIT, WILL NOT MAKE THE ACTIVITY A BUSINESS. ONE MAY REFE R TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST V. CIT, [1975] 101 ITR 234 (SC) IN THIS REGARD. IF THE PROFITS MUST NECES SARILY FEED A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TRUST, THE MERE FAC T THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST YIELD PROFIT WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARITABLE CH ARACTER OF THE TRUST. THE TEST NOW IS, MORE CLEARLY THAN IN THE PAST, THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE PURPOSE TESTED BY THE OBLIGATION CREATED TO SPEND THE MONEY EXCLUSIVE LY OR ESSENTIALLY ON 'CHARITY'. IF THAT OBLIGATION IS THERE, THE INCOME BECOMES ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION. THAT, IN OUR OPINION, IS THE MOST RELIAB LE TEST. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ACID TEST IS W HETHER, ON AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE OBJECT IS TO MAKE PROFIT. T HE COURT HELD THAT IF AFTER MEETING THE EXPENDITURE, IF ANY SURPLUS RESULTS INC IDENTALLY FROM THE ACTIVITY LAWFULLY CARRIED ON BY THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, IT WILL NOT CEASE TO BE ONE EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, SINCE THE OBJECT IS NOT ONE TO MAKE PROFIT. [ADITANAR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION V. ADDL CIT [1997] 224 ITR 310 (SC)]. IT IS INEVITABLE THAT IN CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIE S, CERTAIN SURPLUS MAY ENSUE. THE EARNING OF SURPLUS ITSELF WOULD NOT MEA N THAT THE APPELLANT EXISTED FOR PROFIT. PROFITS MEANS THAT SURPLUS OVER WHIC H THE OWNERS OF THE ENTITY ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 49 OF 151 HAVE A RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FOR ANY PURPOSE INCLUDING THE PERSONAL PURPOSE. PROFIT MAKING WOULD THEREFORE MEANS PRIVATE PROFIT. PROFIT MAKING WOULD NOT MEAN THE SURPLUS THAT RESULTS FROM CERTAIN ACTIVITI ES FOR WHICH THE ORGANISATION IS DEVOTED IS PLOUGHED BACK FOR THE PR OMOTION OF THE VERY SAME ACTIVITIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS CONDUCTED ON LY FEW MATCHES WHICH HAVE YIELDED A SURPLUS. IT HAS ALSO CONDUCTE D MANY OTHER MATCHES WHERE IT HAS INCURRED A HUGE LOSS. THE APPELLANT HA S NOT BEEN FORMED AND IS NOT CARRYING ON ACTIVITIES WITH PROFIT MOTIVE. THE RE IS NO INTENTION TO MAKE PROFITS. THE OBJECTS OF APPELLANT ARE TO PROMOTE T HE GAME OF CRICKET IN GUJARAT. THE SURPLUS, IF ANY, ARISING FROM THE ACT IVITIES ARE SOLELY UTILIZED FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ITS OBJECTS AND NO PORTION IS UT ILIZED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ANY INCOME OR PROFITS. THE ACTIVITIES OF APPELLANT ARE THEREFORE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. FURTHER, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WOULD ALSO NOT BE SATISFIED. ACCORD INGLY, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT IS INELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION DUE TO ITS PROFIT MAKING ACTIVITY IS BAD IN LAW AND IS NOT TENABLE. BEING AN ASSESSEE WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN HELD TO BE CHARITABLE CANNOT BE JETTISONED ON CERTAIN INTERPRETATION AND INFEREN CES. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSOCIATION, CONDUCT AND DOCUMENTATION SUFFICIENTLY SPELL OUT THAT THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 50 OF 151 APPELLANT IS A CHARITABLE ORGANISATION STRIVING TOW ARDS WELFARE AND PROMOTION OF THE GAME OF CRICKET. WE DRAW YOUR HONOURS KIND ATTENTION TO THE RECENT GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TA X (EXEMPTION) VS. SABARMATI ASHRAM GAUSHALA TRUST (2014) 362 ITR 539 (GUJ). WE REPRODUCE HERE BELOW THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS FROM THE SAID DE CISION: 6. THE LEGAL CONTROVERSY IN THE PRESENT TAX APPEAL CENTERS AROUND THE FIRST PROVISO. IN THE PLAIN TERMS, THE PROVISO PROVIDES F OR EXCLUSION FROM THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'CHARITABLE PU RPOSES' AND APPLIES ONLY TO CASES OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IF THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISO ARE SATISFIED , ANY ENTITY, EVEN IF INVOLVED IN ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENE RAL PUBLIC UTILITY BY VIRTUE TO PROVISO, WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION O F 'CHARITABLE TRUST'. HOWEVER, FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISO, WHAT I S NECESSARY IS THAT THE ENTITY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN CARRYING ON ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING SERVICES IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR A NY OTHER CONSIDERATION. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE NATURE, USE OR APPLICATION, O R RETENTION OF INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT. UNDER THE CI RCUMSTANCES, THE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF APPLICATION OF PROVISO ARE THAT THE ENT ITY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES OF ANY TRADE, COMMERCE O R BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITIES ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 51 OF 151 OF RENDERING SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMM ERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. SUCH STATUTORY A MENDMENT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE FINANCE MINISTER'S SPEECH IN THE PARLIAMENT. RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 'I ONCE AGAIN ASSURE THE HOUSE THAT GENUINE CHARITA BLE ORGANIZATIONS WILL NOT IN ANY WAY BE AFFECTED. THE CBDT WILL, FOLLOWING TH E USUAL PRACTICE, ISSUE AN EXPLANATORY CIRCULAR CONTAINING GUIDELINES FOR DETE RMINING WHETHER ANY ENTITY IS CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION T O ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. WHETHER THE PURPOSE IS A CHARITABLE PURPO SE WILL DEPEND ON THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ORDINARILY, CHAM BERS OF COMMERCE AND SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS RENDERING SERVICES TO THEIR M EMBERS WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE AMENDMENT AND THEIR ACTIVITIES WOUL D CONTINUE TO BE REGARDED AS 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBL IC UTILITY'. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ENGAGED IN ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. 23. LEARNED COUNSEL THEN REFERS TO THE JUDICIAL PRE CEDENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY WHICH THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SAID TO B E SQUARELY COVERED, WHICH ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS POINTED OUT BY SHRI SOPARKAR. H IS DEFENCE ON THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS ALSO MATERIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT BY ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 52 OF 151 SHRI SOPARKAR. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE SEE NO NEED TO AGAIN REPRODUCE THESE ARGUMENTS. ON THE STRENGTH OF THESE SUBMISSIO NS, WE ARE ONCE AGAIN URGED TO UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. 24. SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR SAURASH TRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, ALSO ADOPTS THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY HIS LEARNED PREDEC ESSORS AND SUBMITS THAT IN HIS CASE, CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY FOLLOWED HIS DECISION IN TH E CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION. WHATEVER, THEREFORE, IS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION MUST MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOLLOW IN THIS CASE AS WELL. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY HIS PREDE CESSORS HARDLY LEAVE ANY AREA UNCOVERED, AND THAT HE HAS LITTLE TO ADD. HAVING SA ID THAT LEARNED COUNSEL ADDS THAT THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WHICH IS PURSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION AND YET ALL THAT HAS BEEN PUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS, TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE NAME OF PROMOTING CRICKET. LEAR NED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT CRICKET IS A GAME OF MASSES IN THIS COUNTRY AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE FOLLOWING CRICKET IS SO HIGH THAT ANYTHING DOING WITH CRICKET WILL RESULT IN MASS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OF HUGE MAGNITUDE. THIS POPULARITY CANN OT BE PUT AGAINST THE CAUSE OF CRICKET PROMOTION. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IMP ARTING TRAINING IN SPORTS IS NOTHING BUT EDUCATION ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE THE AS SESSEE WOULD FALL IN THE FIRST LIMB OF DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS DEFINED U/ S.2(15) OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER THE RESIDUAL CLAUSE OF THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHE R OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. LEARNED COUNSEL ADDS THAT IF THAT BE THE SITUATION, PROVISO TO S.2(15) WOULD NOT APPLY AT ALL. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 53 OF 151 OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) V. AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION [2014] 366 ITR 85 (GUJARAT)] IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT SINCE THE TERMS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE SCHEM E OF THE ACT, GENERAL OR DICTIONARY MEANING HAS TO BE RESORTED TO. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACTIVITY IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR CHA RITABLE, THE DETERMINING FACTOR IS PROFIT MOTIVE. THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES MAY REMAIN THE SAME. HOWEVER, IF THEY ARE CARRIED OUT FOR PROFIT MOTIVE, THE SAME ARE TO BE C HARACTERIZED AS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. CONVERSELY, IF THE PROFIT MOTIVE IS ABSEN T, THESE VERY ACTIVITIES BECOME CHARITABLE. VIEWED THUS, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBM ITS THAT IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS ARRANGED ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL MATCHES OF CRICKET AND IN TURN HAS RECEIVED TV SUBS IDY / SUBVENTION INCOME I.E SHARING OF TV BROADCASTING RIGHT INCOME FROM BCCI A ND ADVERTISEMENT SALES INCOME, AND THEREFORE, SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE IN THE N ATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS IN VIEW OF FIRST PROVISO TO S.2(15). HE S UBMITS THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE HAS TO BE SEEN FROM TWO LIMBS OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(15) OF THE ACT VIZ.: (A) WHETHER THE PROMOTION OF SPORTS AND GAMES, CRIC KET IN THE PRESENT CASE IS CHARITABLE OR NOT WITHIN THE DEFINITION AS PROVIDED U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT AND (B) WHETHER SUCH PROMOTION OF SPORTS AND GAMES OF C RICKET ARE CARRIED OUT WITH THE PROFIT MOTIVE OR NOT SO TO BE TREATED AS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 54 OF 151 25. IT IS THEN POINTED OUT THAT INSOFAR AS THE FIRS T LIMB AS MENTIONED IN (A) ABOVE IS CONCERNED, ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE CIRCULAR NO. 395 [F. NO. 181(5) 82/IT(A-I)], DATED 24-9-1984, WHEREIN THE BOARD HAS ADVISED THAT PROMOTION OF SPORTS AND GAMES IS CONSIDERED TO BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15). AS FOR THE SECOND LIMB I.E FIRST PROVISO TO S.2(15) OF THE ACT AS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E.F 01/04/2009 IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LAW IS SETTLED BY THE LARGER BENCH OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V S. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION REPORTED IN 121 ITR 1 (SC ) THAT (A) THE PRIMARY OR DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS TO BE EXAMINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SAID TRUST / INSTITUTION IS INVOLVED IN CARRYIN G OUT ANY ACTIVITY FOR THE PROFIT AND (B) IF THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS TO CARRY OUT OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND THIS IS THE PRIMARY OR DOMINANT PURPOSE AND NOT CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT, THE SAME WOULD SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF S.2(15) OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT (A) FIRST PROVISO TO S.2(15) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT GENERALIZED TO EACH AND EVERY FACTS OF THE CASE WHERE THERE IS A SURPLU S OVER THE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE ACTIVITIES OR OBJECTS CARRIED OUT BY THE TRUST WHICH ARE IN ANY CASE OF THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE, (B) THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE IS T HE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE TRUST. IF THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS OF CHARIT ABLE NATURE AND WITH NO-PROFIT MOTIVE, THE SAID ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE TREATED AS TR ADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS MERELY BECAUSE SOME SURPLUS HAS REMAINED LEFT OVER THE EXP ENDITURE TO CARRY OUT SUCH ACTIVITIES. THE ESSENCE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSIN ESS IS PROFIT MOTIVE AND ABSENCE THEREOF MAKES SUCH ACTIVITIES CHARITABLE. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER POINTS OUT THAT ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 55 OF 151 EVEN AFTER INSERTION OF PROVISO TO S.2(15) OF THE A CT W.E.F. 01/04/2009, THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES, AFTER FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY APEX COURT IN SURAT ART SILK (SUPRA), HAVE TAKEN A VIEW THAT IF THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS OF CHARITABLE NATURE AND WITH NO-PROFIT MOTIVE, THE SAID ACTIVITI ES CANNOT BE TREATED AS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS MERELY BECAUSE SOME SURPLUS HA S REMAINED LEFT OVER THE EXPENDITURE TO CARRY OUT SUCH ACTIVITIES : (A) CIT V. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI ON [2017] 83 TAXMANN.COM 366 (GUJARAT) (B) DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) V. AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION [2014] 366 ITR 85 (GUJARAT) (C) SABARMATI ASHRAM GAUSHALA TRUST VS. ADIT (EXEMP TION) [2014] 362 ITR 539 (GUJARAT) (D) INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. DGIT REPORTED IN 347 ITR 99 (DELHI) (E) ACIT VS DELHI & DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION (I TA NO. 361/DEL/2016 FOR AY 2010-11, DATED 19/09/2018) ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 56 OF 151 26. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE THE GAME OF C RICKET IN SAURASHTRA AND KUTCH BY ORGANIZING COACHING SCHEMES, TOURNAMENTS, EXHIBI TION MATCHES AND OTHER MATCHES ETC. THE ATTENTION IS FURTHER INVITED TO THE CLAUSE 3(J) OF MOA WHICH PROVIDES TO ORGANIZE MATCHES FOR THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE OBJECT S OF THE ASSOCIATION AND UTILIZE THE NET PROCEEDS THEREOF TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OBJECT SET THEREIN. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RECEIPTS ARISING OR ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ARE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT TO MEET THE O BJECT OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST I.E. TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE THE GAME OF CRICKET IN SAURAS HTRA AND KUTCH BY ORGANIZING COACHING SCHEMES, TOURNAMENTS, EXHIBITION MATCHES A ND OTHER MATCHES ETC, AND THEY ARE NOT WITH THE INTENTION TO CARRY OUT ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS WITH PROFIT MOTIVE. SUCH RECEIPTS SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONFINED T O THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AND WITH THE INTENTION TO CARRY OUT ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. 27. LEARNED COUNSEL CONCLUDES BY SUBMITTING THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON AN APPEAL, WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE PO SSIBLE, THE VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE, THERE ARE LARGE NUMBERS OF DECISIONS WHICH ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS PLAUSIBLE AND PROBABLE, THE VIEW IN FAVOUR MAY KINDLY BE ADOPTED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIES UPON A HOST OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS INCLUDING IN THE CASES OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD. V CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC), ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION V CIT 237 ITR 589 (SC), CIT ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 57 OF 151 V. PODAR CEMENT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS. 226 ITR 625 ( SC), CIT V VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. 88 ITR 192 (SC), AND CIT V NAGA HILLS TEA CO. LTD. 89 ITR 236, 240 (SC). WE ARE THUS URGED TO FOLLOW THE DIVISION BENCH DECISIO NS IN THE CASES OF OTHER CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15). 28. SHRI VAISHNAV, LEARNED COMMISSIONER- DR, BEGINS BY POINTING OUT HOW THE GAME OF CRICKET HAS UNDERGONE HUGE PARADIGM SHIFT A S A SPORT AND AS A BUSINESS. HE POINTS OUT THAT THE CONTROL OF CRICKET IS IN A FEW POWERFUL HANDS AND THAT CRICKET IS COMPLETELY MONOPOLIZED BY THE BOARD OF CRICKET CONT ROL IN INDIA. IT IS THEN SUBMITTED THAT THE BCCI IS NOT A RANK OUTSIDER FOR THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS BUT THE APEX BODIES OF THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. THESE CR ICKET ASSOCIATIONS ACT IN TANDEM WITH THE BCCI AND THE CRICKET IS PURSUED IN AS COMM ERCIAL A MANNER AS IT CAN BE PURSUED. LEARNED COMMISSIONER REFERS TO AUCTION OF PLAYERS FOR PLAYING MATCHES AND THE FORMAT OF THE MATCHES BEING IMPROVISED AS PER T HE REQUIREMENTS OF COMMERCIAL INTERESTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT CRICKET AS IT IS PU RSUED BY THE BCCI AND ITS AFFILIATES IS PURE ENTERTAINMENT, AND THESE ARE THE DICTATES OF I TS ENTERTAINMENT VALUE THAT DECIDES THE FORM AND PRESENTATION OF CRICKET. IF IT IS A NO BLE ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION IN A GENTLEMANS SPORT, WHERE IS THE NEED OF AUCTIONING OF THE PLAYERS. THE COMMERCE IS GLARING IN EACH FACET OF CRICKET TODAY. HE ALSO SUB MITS THAT EVEN IMPARTING CRICKET COACHING IS A BIG BUSINESS RATHER THAN A SELFLESS E DUCATION. AS REGARDS PARITY WITH THE IMPROVEMENT TRUSTS AND AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LEARNED COMMISSIONER POINTS OUT THAT THESE BODIES ARE CREAT URES OF LAW FOR NOBLE PURPOSES. THATS IS QUITE UNLIKE THE PURE ENTERTAINMENT GENER ATION BY THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 58 OF 151 ASSOCIATIONS AND THE BCCI. WHAT IS BEING PURSUED BY THESE ASSOCIATIONS, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, IS PURE COMMERCIAL EXP LOITATION OF CRICKET AND THAT IS THE REASON THAT THE PROFITS OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS N EEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES AND TH E BCCI CANNOT BE WITHOUT QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN THE BCCI AND THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, O R ELSE WHY WOULD ANYONE SHARE SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS WITH CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. BCCI ORGANIZES THE EVENTS ON PURE COMMERCIAL LINES, MAKES HUGE MONIES ON ORGANIZ ING THESE EVENTS, AND SHARE THE MONIES WITH THE LOCAL CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. WHAT TH E ASSOCIATIONS GET IS ON ACCOUNT OF FRUITS OF THE COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, AND THAT PRECI SELY IS THE REASON THESE MONIES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. LEARNED COMMISSIONER THEN TAKES US THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2(15) AND LINKS T HE SAME TO HOW THE SPORTS HAVE BEEN EXPLOITED COMMERCIALLY IN THE LAST FEW DECADES . HE SUBMITS THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS WER E ALL ALONG TREATED AS INVOLVED IN ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND, EFFECTIVE 1 ST APRIL 2009, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) CAME IN FORCE WHICH MA DE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COM MERCE OR BUSINESS OR RENDITION OF SERVICES, FOR A CESS, FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIO N, TO THE BUSINESS ENTITIES. THE PRINCIPLE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVES, IS CLEAR. WHEN YOU ARE HERE TO MAKE MONEY FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES ON COMM ERCIAL LINES, IN THE GARB OF PURSUING ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, YOU MAY AS WELL PAY TAX ON THE EARNINGS FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES. THERE IS NO D ISPUTE THAT THE CRICKET IS NOW BIGGEST SOURCE OF MAKING MONEY AND, THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE ENTITIES ORGANIZING CRICKET EVENTS SHOULD ALSO BE TAXED. LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THEN TAKES ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 59 OF 151 US THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND PLACES HIS VEHEMENT RELIANCE ON THE SAME. LEARNED COMMISSIONER THEN SUBMITS THAT ON E HAS TO BEAR IN MIND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAIN ACTIVITY AND THE AUXILI ARY ACTIVITY. HE SUBMITS THAT INVESTING HUNDREDS OF CRORES OF RUPEES IN CRICKET S TADIUMS CANNOT BE TO TEACH CRICKET; IT CAN ONLY BE TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE FOR REAPING COMMERCIAL PROFITS OUT OF EXHIBITING CRICKET MATCHES, AND, IF THAT BE SO, THE CRICKET ED UCATION IS NOT THE PREDOMINANT OR CORE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. WE CANNOT BE SO NAV E, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, TO BE OBLIVIOUS OF THESE GROUND REALI TIES. WE ARE THUS URGED TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANTS BEFORE US ARE ENGAGED IN COMMER CIAL ACTIVITIES AND THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BE TREATED AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTIO NS UNDER SECTION 2(15). 29. IN A BRIEF REJOINDER, THE COMMON POINTS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WERE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BCCI CANNO T BE SUBJECT MATTER OF DEBATE OF THIS FORUM NOR ANY CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN IN RESP ECT OF THE SAME WITHOUT EVEN HEARING THE BCCI. IN ANY CASE, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUME D THAT BCCI IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, THAT WOULD IMPACT ON TAXABIL ITY IN THE HANDS OF THE BCCI AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE LOCAL CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THESE STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS AND THE BCCI ARE DISTINCT TAXA BLE UNITS AND MUST BE TREATED AS SUCH, AS THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE LAW THAT A ME MBER BODY CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR TAXATION ON ACCOUNT OF ACTIVITIES OF THE APEX BODY. QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, IN CASE BCCI IS HELD TO BE INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH IS WHAT THE CASE OF TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS, THE PROFITS ARE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE BCCI AND TH E DISBURSEMENTS OF THESE PROFITS TO ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 60 OF 151 THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, AS IS ALLEGED DURING THE ARGUMENTS, CANNOT BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. IT IS AGAIN URGED THAT THE TRIGGER FOR DENIAL OF SECTION 2(15) BENEFIT, OR FOR THE PROVISO TO SECTIO N 2 (15) BEING INVOKED, IS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT AN OUTSIDER. LEARNED COUNSE L ONCE AGAIN TAKES US THROUGH HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SURAT ART (SUPRA). FINALLY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE ARE LARGE NUMBER OF DIVI SION BENCH DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF OTHER SIMILARLY PLACED CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN IF THIS BENCH IS NOT INCLINED TO BE GUIDED BY THESE DECISIO NS, THESE APPEALS CAN AT BEST BE REFERRED TO A LARGER BENCH. A LARGE NUMBER OF JUDI CIAL PRECEDENTS ARE CITED IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION AS WELL. WE ARE THUS ONCE AGAIN URGED TO UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15 ) CANNOT BE INVOKED ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 30. WE HAVE CONSCIENTIOUSLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENT IONS, CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED THE APPLICAB LE LEGAL POSITION. OUR ANALYSIS: 31. AS WE PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE IMPACT OF INSERT ION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT A COOR DINATE BENCH DECISION, IN THE CASE OF HOSHIARPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS ACIT [(2015) 155 IT D 570 (ASR)], WHEREIN, SPEAKING THROUGH ONE OF US (I.E. THE VICE PRESIDENT), THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 61 OF 151 14. BEFORE WE ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THE FACTS OF THI S CASE, LET US ANALYSE THE RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS. SECTION 2 (15), WHICH DE FINES CHARITABLE PURPOSES THOUGH IN AN INCLUSIVE RATHER THAN AN EXHAUSTIVE MA NNER, HAD A RATHER QUIET EXISTENCE, UNAFFECTED BY THE FREQUENT AMENDMENTS TO THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, TILL 1ST APRIL 1984. VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2013, AND WI TH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 1984, THE WORDS NOT INVOLVING THE CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT WERE DELETED FROM SECTION 2(15), AND, WITH THIS AMENDMEN T, THIS DEFINITION WAS AS FOLLOWS: 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE POOR, E DUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY: 15. VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2008, THE WORDS PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING WATERSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE) AND PR ESERVATION OF MONUMENTS OR PLACES OR OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST) , WERE ADDED AND, ON A MORE RELEVANT NOTE, A NEW PROVISO (I.E. FIST PROVISO) WA S ADDED TO THIS PROVISION, CARVING OUT AN EXCEPTION IN THE CASES OF ADVANCEME NT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL UTILITY, AND, BY THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINANCE ACT 2009, THERE WAS YET ANOTHER PROVISO (I.E. SECOND PROVISO) INTRO DUCED TO CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION FROM THE EXCEPTION ITSELF. IN ESSENCE, TH E EFFECT OF THESE PROVISOS WAS THAT EVEN WHEN AN ASSESSEE WAS PURSUING A CHAR ITABLE PURPOSE IN THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 62 OF 151 EVENT OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY IT WOULD CEASE TO BE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IF IT INVOLVES (A) CARRY ING ON AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS; OR (B) RENDE RING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF NATURE OF USE OR APP LICATION OR RETENTION OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, THESE PROVISION S ARE NOT TO APPLY WHEN THE ACTIVITIES ARE SUCH A MODEST SCALE THAT THE VAL UE OF RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ARE LESS THAN RS 25 LAKHS. THESE TWO PROVI SOS, AS THEY STAND NOW, ARE AS FOLLOWS: PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT IN VOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO AN Y TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERAT ION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY; PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL NOT A PPLY IF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO THEREIN IS TWENTY FIVE LAKH RUPEES OR LESS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 63 OF 151 16. EXPLAINING THE SCOPE OF THESE PROVISIONS, A COO RDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ENVIRONME NT PROTECTION AND POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS CIT [(2010) 9 ITR TRIB 2 04 (CHANDIGARH)], HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 13. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE I NSERTION OF PROVISO TO S. 2(15) DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN CASE AN ASSESSEE IS TO RECEIVE ANY PAYMENT FOR ANYTHING DONE FOR TRADE, COMMERCE OR BU SINESS, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE HIT BY THE SAID PROVISO. IT MAY BE RECALLED THAT ELABORATING THE SCOPE OF THIS AMENDMENT, CBDT, VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 11, DT. 19TH DEC., 2008 [(2009) 221 CTR (ST) 1], HAS OB SERVED AS FOLLOWS: '3. THE NEWLY AMENDED S. 2(15) WILL APPLY ONLY TO T HE ENTITIES WHOSE PURPOSE IS ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY I.E., THE FOURTH LIMB OF DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE CONTAINED IN S. 2(15). HENCE, SUCH ENTITIE S WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S. 11 OR UNDER S. 10(2 3C) OF THE ACT, IF THEY CARRY ON COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. WHETHE R SUCH AN ENTITY IS CARRYING ON AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH WI LL BE DECIDED BASED ON THE NATURE, SCOPE, EXTENT AND FREQUENCY OF ACTIVITY. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 64 OF 151 3.1 THERE ARE INDUSTRY AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS WHO C LAIM EXEMPTION FROM TAX UNDER S. 11 OR ON THE GROUND THA T THEIR OBJECTS ARE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS THESE ARE CO VERED UNDER THE ANY OTHER OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY. UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY, IF TRADING TAKES PLACE BETWEEN THE PERSO NS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED TOGETHER AND CONTRIBUTE TO A COMMON FUND FOR THE FINANCING OF SOME VENTURE OR OBJECT, AND IN THIS RE SPECT HAVE NO DEALINGS OR RELATIONS WITH ANY OUTSIDE BODY, THEN T HE SURPLUS RETURNED TO SUCH PERSONS IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THEREFORE, WHERE INDUSTRY OR TRADE ASSOCIATIONS CLAIM BOTH TO BE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS MUTUAL MEMBERS, THESE WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF S. 2(15) OWING TO THE PRINCIPL E OF MUTUALITY. HOWEVER, IF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DEAL INGS WITH THE NON-MEMBERS, THEIR CLAIM FOR CHARITABLE INSTITU TION WOULD NOW BE GOVERNED BY THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS STIPUL ATED IN PROVISO TO S. 2(15). 3.2 IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FOR ITS OBJECT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUB LIC UTILITY IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IF SUCH ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR RENDER S ANY SERVICE IN CONNECTION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINES S, IT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THAT ITS OBJECT IS FOR CHA RITABLE PURPOSES. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 65 OF 151 IN SUCH A CASE, THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILI TY WILL ONLY BE A MASK OR A DEVICE TO HIDE THE TRUE PURPOSE WHICH I S TRADE, COMMERCE, OR BUSINESS OR RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE I N RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. EACH CASE WOULD, THERE FORE, HAVE TO BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN FACTS, AND GENERALIZATIONS ARE NOT POSSIBLE. AN ASSESSEE WHO CLAIMS THAT THEIR OBJECT IS CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF S. 2(15) WOULD BE WE LL ADVISED TO ESCHEW ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TR ADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. 14. AS THE ABOVE CBDT CIRCULAR, WHICH IS BINDING ON THE CIT UNDER S. 119(1)(A) OF THE ACT, APTLY PUTS IT, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS, AS ITS OBJECT, ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF TO BE DECIDED ON THE FACT S OF THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND WHERE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC ACTIVIT Y IS ONLY A MASK OR DEVICE TO HIDE THE TRUE PURPOSE OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR COMMERCE, OR RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION THERETO, THE A SSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ENGAGED IN A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WITHIN MEANINGS OF S. 2(15) OF THE ACT. AS A COROLLARY TO THIS APPROACH ADOPTED BY TAX ADMINISTRATION, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT CANNOT B E OPEN TO LEARNED CIT TO CONTEND THAT WHERE AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBL IC UTILITY IS NOT MERELY A MASK TO HIDE TRUE PURPOSE OR RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 66 OF 151 RELATION THERETO, AND WHERE SUCH SERVICES ARE BEING RENDERED AS PURELY INCIDENTAL TO OR AS SUBSERVIENT TO THE MAIN OBJECTI VE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, THE CARRYING ON OF BONA FIDE ACTIVITIES I N FURTHERANCE OF SUCH OBJECTIVES OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WILL ALSO BE HIT BY THE PROVISO TO S. 2(15). 15. AS CBDT RIGHTLY PUTS IT, SWEEPING GENERALIZATI ONS ARE NOT POSSIBLE AND EACH CASE WILL HAVE TO DECIDED ON IT S FACTS. THE QUESTION THEN ARISES WHETHER ON THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR IN RENDERING OF A SERVICE TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINE SS. 17. THEREFORE, AS THE LEGAL POSITION STANDS AS ON N OW, EVEN AFTER THE INSERTION OF THE ABOVE TWO PROVISOS, AS LONG AS THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IS NOT MERELY A MASK TO HIDE TRUE PURPOSE O R RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION THERETO, AND WHERE SUCH SERVICES ARE BE ING RENDERED AS PURELY INCIDENTAL TO OR AS SUBSERVIENT TO THE MAIN OBJECTI VE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, THE CARRYING ON OF BONAFIDE ACTIVITIES IN FURTHERANCE OF SUCH OBJECTIVES OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY CANNOT BE HI T BY THE PROVISO TO S. 2(15). BY THE FINANCE ACT 2015, THESE TWO PROVISOS ALSO ST AND SUBSTITUTED, WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2016, A NEW PROVISO TO SECTIO N 2(15). THIS NEW PROVISO IS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 67 OF 151 PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT IN VOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO AN Y TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERAT ION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY, UNLESS (I) SUCH ACTIVITY IS UNDERTAKEN IN THE COURSE OF AC TUAL CARRYING OUT OF SUCH ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJEC T OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY; AND (II) THE AGGREGATE RECEIPTS FROM SUCH ACTIVITY OR A CTIVITIES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, DO NOT EXCEED TWENTY PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS, OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDERTA KING SUCH ACTIVITY OR ACTIVITIES, OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR 18. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT WHILE THE EARLIER PROVISO SIMPLY STATED THAT EXCLUSION FROM CHARITABLE PURPOSES WILL COME INTO PLAY IF IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION T O ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, THE REQUIREMENT OF EXCLUSION CLAUSE EXTE NDS EVEN TO SITUATIONS IN WHICH SUCH ACTIVITY IS UNDERTAKEN IN THE COURSE OF ACTUAL CARRYING OUT OF SUCH ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 68 OF 151 ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE, BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15), WAS EARLIER TRIGGERED BY INVOLVEMENT IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE , COMMERCE OR BUSINESS ETC BUT, POST FINANCE ACT 2015 AMENDMENT, IT WILL BE TRIGGERED EVEN IF SUCH AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUS INESS ETC IS UNDERTAKEN IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING OUT SUCH ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 19. THIS SUBSTITUTION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, MAY BE VIEWED AS REPRESENTING A PARADIGM SHIFT IN T HE SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE. 20. THE PARADIGM SHIFT IS THIS. SO FAR AS THE SCOPE OF EARLIER PROVISOS IS CONCERNED, THE CBDT ITSELF HAS, DEALING WITH AN ASS ESSEE PURSING THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBIC UTILITY , OBSERVED THAT IF SUCH ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE O F TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR RENDERS ANY SERVICE IN CONNECTION TO TR ADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THAT ITS OBJECT I S FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES BECAUSE IN SUCH A CASE, THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUB LIC UTILITY WILL ONLY BE A MASK OR A DEVICE TO HIDE THE TRUE PURPOSE WHICH IS TRADE, COMMERCE, OR BUSINESS OR RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECTS OF GENERA L PUBLIC UTILITY AND ENGAGEMENT IN TRADE, COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ETC. WER E THUS SEEN AS MUTUALLY ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 69 OF 151 EXCLUSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUING THE OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY OR PURSUING TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS ETC. IN THE GARB OF PURSING THE OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILI TY. AS THE CBDT CIRCULAR ITSELF DEMONSTRATES, THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSING THE OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AS ALSO ENGAGED IN TRADE, COMMERCE OF BUSINESS ETC. IN THE NEW PROVISO , HOWEVER, EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS ETC. AND SUCH ACTIVITY IS UNDERTAKEN IN T HE COURSE OF ACTUAL CARRYING OUT OF SUCH ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENE RAL PUBLIC UTILITY IT IS EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES ONLY WHEN THE AGGREGATE RECEIPTS FROM SUCH ACTIVITY OR ACTIVITIES DURING TH E PREVIOUS YEAR, DO NOT EXCEED TWENTY PER CENT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS, OF TH E TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDERTAKING SUCH ACTIVITY OR ACTIVITIES, OF THAT PR EVIOUS YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN WHEN THE ACTIVITIES ARE IN THE COURSE OF ADVAN CEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, BUT IN THE NATURE OF TRA DE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS ETC, THE PROVISO SEEKS TO EXCLUDE IT ONLY WHEN THE THRES HOLD LEVEL OF ACTIVITY IS NOT SATISFIED. WHETHER SUCH A STATUTORY PROVISION STAND S THE LEGAL SCRUTINY OR NOT IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE MATTER, AND THAT IS NONE O F OUR CONCERN AT PRESENT ANYWAY, IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE NEW PROVISO, WI TH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2016, SEEKS TO EXCLUDE, FROM THE SCOPE OF SECTION 2 (15), THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH EVEN IN THE COURSE OF PURSUING ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WHEN ANY ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS ETC IS UNDERTAKEN IN THE COURSE OF ACTUAL CARRYING OUT OF SUCH ADVANCEMENT ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 70 OF 151 OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, UNL ESS, OF COURSE, THE ACTIVITY LEVEL REMAINS WITHIN THE THRESHOLD LIMIT I.E. RECEI PTS FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE LESS THAN TWENTY PERCENT OF TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THAT YEAR. 21. AS THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, WHICH, IN OUR HUMBLE U NDERSTANDING, SEEKS TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF SECTION 2(15) IS EFFECTIVE FR OM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016- 17, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THESE PROVISIONS ARE ON LY PROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT. AS A COROLLARY TO THIS LEGAL POSITION, IN OUR CONSIDER ED VIEW, EVEN IF THE ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS ETC AR E UNDERTAKEN IN THE COURSE OF ACTUAL CARRYING OUT OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, TILL THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17, THE ACTIVITIES WILL CONTINUE TO BE COVERED BY THE SCOPE OF SECTION 2 (15). 32. THE VIEWS SO EXPRESSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH WERE APPROVED BY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT (EXE MPTIONS) VS IMPROVEMENT TRUST MONGA [ITA NO. 147 OF 2016; REPORTED AS TRIBUNE TRUST VS CIT (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H ] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE, INTER ALIA, OBSERVE D AS FOLLOWS: THE TRIBUNAL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER HELD THAT TH E STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES WAS UNSUSTAINABLE AS EVEN ASSUMING THAT ALL THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROFIT MOTIVE IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CORRECT, THE SAME WERE CARRIED OUT WIT H THE LARGER AND ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 71 OF 151 PREDOMINANT OBJECTIVE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. RE LYING UPON THE CBDT CIRCULAR THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT 'THE INCOME IS FROM ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH I S NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST OR INSTIT UTION', THAT SUCH AN INCOME WILL 'NOT BE EXEMPT FROM TAX'. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED T HAT THERE IS NO FINDING TO THAT EFFECT BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES AND THAT IT I S NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUSTS DO NOT SE RVE THE OBJECTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ACTIVITI ES OF THE TRUST FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY 'OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY'. IT WA S ALSO HELD THAT SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE M AINTAINED. THIS WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE US. IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THESE APPEALS TO DECIDE THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2(15) INTRODUCED WITH E FFECT FROM 01.04.2016. THE TRIBUNAL THEN DEALT WITH THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF DEVELOPI NG AND SELLING THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL UNITS WITH THE SOLE AIM OF MAKING PROFITS. THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD ARE AS F OLLOWS; THE PROFIT ON SALE DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY PROFIT MOTIVE IN THE ACT IVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE MOTIVE OR THE PREDOMINANT OBJEC T OF THE ACTIVITIES. THE BIDS ARE INVITED BY THE ASSESSEE WHO ALLOTS THE PLOTS TO THE HIGHEST BIDDERS. THIS, HOWEVER, IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT DESIRABLE FOR THE STA TE TO SUBSIDISE ITS BUSINESSES. A BIDDING PROCESS ENSURES TRANSPARENCY IN THE FUNCTIONING OF THE TRUSTS AND THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT MAKE THE BIDDING PROCESS A COMMERCIAL ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 72 OF 151 VENTURE. FURTHER THE BIDS ARE INVITED ONLY IN THE C ONTEXT OF COMMERCIAL UNITS. UNDER THE RULES THERE IS A FORMULA ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PRICE IS WORKED OUT. THE REVENUE DID NOT DENY THE SAME BUT ALLEGED THAT THE PROFIT MOTIVE IS EMBEDDED IN THIS FORMULA AS SHOWN BY THE ADJUSTMENT S FOR VARIOUS CHARGES. 72. THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CONTENTION TH AT TO FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE WORDS 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GE NERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' THE TRUST MUST NECESSARILY BE INVOLVED ONLY IN IMPLEMEN TING POVERTY ALLEVIATION PROGRAMS OR DOING OTHER ACTS OF CHARITY. IT IS SUFF ICIENT IF IT DOES PRECISELY WHAT THE LAST CATEGORY IN SECTION 2(15) STATES NAME LY BEING INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJECT OF GENE RAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THEY INCLUDE A PROPER SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN AREAS. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE BY VIRTUE OF THE PTI ACT UNDERTAKEN BY THIS ASSESSE E. 73. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO RIGHTLY HELD THAT AN OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THE ACTIVITIES TO BE FUNDED OR SUBSIDIZED BY THE STATE. SO LONG AS THE OBJECTS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE WORDS 'OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY', IT IS SUFFICIENT. THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THOSE OBJECTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE AS A RESULT OF STATE FUNDING OR STATE SUBSIDY . THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIE D IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CO VERED BY THE WORDS 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' IN SECTION 2(15). ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 73 OF 151 THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO DELETE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION. 33. ON A SIMILAR AND DETAILED NOTE, OUR JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF SABARMATI GAUSHALA TRUST (SUPRA) , HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 5. TERM 'CHARITABLE TRUST' IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES THE RELIEF TO THE POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, PRES ERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT; INCLUDING WATERSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE AND PRESERVATION O F MONUMENTS OR PLACES OR OBJECTIONS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST AND ADV ANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15) A ND FURTHER PROVISO WHEREOF INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 2010 W.E.F 1ST APRIL 2009 READ, THUS 'PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT INVOLVES THE CAR RYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIV ITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL NOT A PPLY IF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO THEREI N IS TWENTY FIVE LAKH RUPEES OR LESS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.' ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 74 OF 151 6. THE LEGAL CONTROVERSY IN THE PRESENT TAX APPEAL CENTERS AROUND THE FIRST PROVISO. IN THE PLAIN TERMS, THE PROVISO PROVIDES FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'CHARITABLE PURPOSES' AND AP PLIES ONLY TO CASES OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IF T HE CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISO ARE SATISFIED, ANY ENTITY, EVEN IF INVOLVED IN ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY BY VIRTUE TO PROVISO, WOU LD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF 'CHARITABLE TRUST'. HOWEVER, FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISO, WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THE ENTITY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN CARRYING ON A CTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING SERVICES IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHE R CONSIDERATION. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE NATURE, USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETEN TION OF INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF APPLICATION OF PROVISO ARE THAT THE ENTITY SHOULD B E INVOLVED IN CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES OF ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR AN Y ACTIVITIES OF RENDERING SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. SUCH STATUTORY AMENDMENT WAS EXPLAIN ED BY THE FINANCE MINISTER'S SPEECH IN THE PARLIAMENT. RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READS AS UNDER : 'I ONCE AGAIN ASSURE THE HOUSE THAT GENUINE CHARITA BLE ORGANIZATIONS WILL NOT IN ANY WAY BE AFFECTED. THE CBDT WILL, FOLLOWING THE U SUAL PRACTICE, ISSUE AN EXPLANATORY CIRCULAR CONTAINING GUIDELINES FOR DETE RMINING WHETHER ANY ENTITY IS CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, CO MMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO AN Y TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. WHETHER THE PURPOSE IS A CHARITABLE PURPOSE WILL DE PEND ON THE TOTALITY OF THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 75 OF 151 FACTS OF THE CASE. ORDINARILY, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS RENDERING SERVICES TO THEIR MEMBERS WOULD NOT BE AF FECTED BY THE AMENDMENT AND THEIR ACTIVITIES WOULD CONTINUE TO BE REGARDED AS ' ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY'.' 7. IN CONSONANCE WITH SUCH ASSURANCE GIVEN BY THE F INANCE MINISTER ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, CBDT ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO. 11 OF 2008 DA TED 19TH DECEMBER 2008 EXPLAINING THE AMENDMENT AS UNDER : '3. THE NEWLY INSERTED PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15) WI LL APPLY ONLY TO ENTITIES WHOSE PURPOSE IS ' ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GEN ERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' IE., THE FOURTH LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF ' CHARITABLE PURPO SE' CONTAINED IN SECTION 2 (15). HENCE, SUCH ENTITIES WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 11 OR UNDER SECTION 10 (23C) OF THE ACT IF THEY CARRY ON COMMER CIAL ACTIVITIES. WHETHER SUCH AN ENTITY IS CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH WILL BE DECIDED BASED O N THE NATURE, SCOPE, EXTENT AND FREQUENCY OF THE ACTIVITY. 3.1 THERE ARE INDUSTRY AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS WHO C LAIM EXEMPTION FROM TAX UNDER SECTION 11 ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR OBJECTS A RE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS THESE ARE COVERED UNDER ' ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENER AL PUBLIC UTILITY'. UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY, IF TRADING TAKES PLACE BETW EEN PERSONS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED TOGETHER AND CONTRIBUTE TO A COMMON FUND FOR THE FI NANCING OF SOME VENTURE OR OBJECT AND IN THIS RESPECT HAVE NO DEALINGS OR RELA TIONS WITH ANY OUTSIDE BODY, THEN ANY SURPLUS RETURNED TO THE PERSONS FORMING SU CH ASSOCIATION IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IN SUCH CASES, THERE MUST BE COM PLETE IDENTITY BETWEEN THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 76 OF 151 CONTRIBUTORS AND THE PARTICIPANTS. THEREFORE, WHERE INDUSTRY OR TRADE ASSOCIATIONS CLAIM BOTH TO BE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIO NS AS WELL AS MUTUAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE RESTRICTED T O CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AND PARTICIPATION OF ONLY THEIR MEMBERS, THESE WOULD NO T FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15) OWING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. HOWEVER, IF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DEALINGS WITH NON-MEMBERS, THEIR CLAIM TO BE CHARGEABLE ORGANIZATIONS WOULD NOW BE GOVERNED BY THE ADDITION AL CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15). 3.2 IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, HOWEVER, WHETHER THE ASS ESSEE HAS FOR ITS OBJECT ' THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY' IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IF SUCH ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NAT URE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR RENDERS ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRAD E, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THAT ITS OBJECT IS C HARITABLE PURPOSE. IN SUCH A CASE, THE OBJECT OF ' GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' WILL BE ONLY A MASK OR A DEVICE TO HIDE THE TRUE PURPOSE WHICH IS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINE SS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. EACH CASE WOULD, THEREFORE, BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN FACTS AND NO GENERALIZATION I S POSSIBLE. ASSESSEES, WHO CLAIM THAT THEIR OBJECT IS ' CHARITABLE PURPOSE' WI THIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15), WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO ESCHEW ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS.' 8. WHAT THUS EMERGES FROM THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AS EXPLAINED IN THE SPEECH OF FINANCE MINISTER AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR, IS THAT THE ACTIVITY OF A TRUST WOULD BE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 77 OF 151 EXCLUDED FROM THE TERM ' CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IF IT IS ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR RENDERS AN Y SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A CESS, FEE AND/OR ANY OTH ER CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT AIMED AT EXCLUDING THE GENUINE CHARITABLE TRUSTS OF GENER AL PUBLIC UTILITY BUT IS AIMED AT EXCLUDING ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMER CE OR BUSINESS WHICH ARE MASKED AS ' CHARITABLE PURPOSE'. 9. MANY ACTIVITIES OF GENUINE CHARITABLE PURPOSES W HICH ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS MAY STILL GENERATE MARKETABLE PRODUCTS. AFTER SETTING OFF OF THE COST, FOR PRODUCTION OF SUCH MARKETABLE PRODUCTS FR OM THE SALE CONSIDERATION, THE ACTIVITY MAY LEAVE A SURPLUS. THE LAW DOES NOT EXPE CT THE TRUST TO DISPOSE OF ITS PRODUCE AT ANY CONSIDERATION LESS THAN THE MARKET V ALUE. IF THERE IS ANY SURPLUS GENERATED AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THAT BY ITSELF WO ULD NOT BE THE SOLE CONSIDERATION FOR JUDGING WHETHER ANY ACTIVITY IS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS - PARTICULARLY IF GENERATING ' SURPLUS' IS WHOLLY INCIDENTAL TO THE P RINCIPAL ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST; WHICH IS OTHERWISE FOR GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, AND THEREF ORE, OF CHARITABLE NATURE. . 11. WE ARE WHOLLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE SAME WAS FOR GENERAL PUB LIC UTILITY AND WHERE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST ARE - TO BREED THE CATTLE AND ENDEAVOUR TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE COWS AND OXEN IN VIEW OF THE NEED OF GOOD OXEN AS INDIA IS PROMINENT AGRICULTURAL COUNTRY; TO PRODUCE AND SALE THE COW MILK; TO HOLD AND CULTIVATE AGRICULTURAL LANDS; TO KEEP GRAZING LANDS FOR CATTLE KEEPING AND BREEDING; TO ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 78 OF 151 REHABILITATE AND ASSIST RABARIS AND BHARWADS; TO MA KE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR GETTING INFORMATICS AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND TO DO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WITH REGARD TO KEEPING AND BREEDING OF THE CATTLE, AGRICULTURE, USE OF MILK AND ITS VARIOUS PREPARATIONS, ETC.; TO ESTABLISH OTHER ALLIED INSTI TUTIONS LIKE LEATHER WORK AND TO RECOGNIZE AND HELP THEM IN ORDER TO MAKE THE COW KE EPING ECONOMICALLY VIABLE; TO PUBLISH STUDY MATERIALS, BOOKS, PERIODICALS, MONTHL IES ETC., IN ORDER TO PUBLICIZE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AS ALSO TO OPEN SCHOOLS AND HO STELS FOR IMPARTING EDUCTION IN COW KEEPING AND AGRICULTURE HAVING REGARD TO THE TRUST OBJECTS. 12. ALL THESE WERE THE OBJECTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLI C UTILITY AND WOULD SQUARELY FALL UNDER SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT. PROFIT MAKING WAS NEITHER THE AIM NOR OBJECT OF THE TRUST. IT WAS NOT THE PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY. MERELY BE CAUSE WHILE CARRYING OUT THE ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, CERTAIN INCIDENTAL SURPLUSES WERE GENERATED, WOULD NOT RENDER THE ACTI VITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. AS CLARIFIED BY THE CBDT IN I TS CIRCULAR NO. 11/2008 DATED 19TH DECEMBER 2008 THE PROVISO AIMS TO ATTRACT THOS E ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE TRULY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS BUT ARE CARRI ED OUT UNDER THE GUISE OF ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF ' PUBLIC UTILITY'. 34. WHAT ESSENTIALLY FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSS IONS IS THAT, EVEN AFTER THE 2008 AMENDMENT AND INSERTION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), SO FAR AS ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IS CONCERNED, AS LONG AS PROFIT EARNING IS NOT THE PREDOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE , THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 2(15) CANNOT BE DECLINED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ACCRUAL OF PROFITS TO THE ASSESSEE, BY ITSELF, ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 79 OF 151 CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE REASON ENOUGH TO HOLD THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER SECTIO N 2(15). OF COURSE, ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE RELEVANT ONLY FOR THE RESIDUARY CLA USE I.E. ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IN CASE, THEREFORE, WHERE THE OBJECTS BEING PURSUED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION OR M EDICAL RELIEF, IT IS NOT EVEN MATERIAL WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE O F TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS IN THE COURSE OF SUCH ACTIVITI ES. THE KEY FACTOR IS AS TO WHAT ARE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION AND AS TO WHAT THESE ACTIVITIES SEEK TO ACHIEVE. 35. LET US TAKE A PAUSE HERE AND EXAMINE AS TO WHAT ARE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS SO AS TO BE BROUGHT W ITHIN THE AMBIT OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. WE HAVE SEEN OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATIO N, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED EARLIER IN OUR ORDER, AND IT IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE REVEN UE THAT THESE OBJECTS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS; THESE O BJECTS ARE SIMPLY TO PROMOTE CRICKET. THE TRIGGER FOR INVOKING PROVISO TO SECTIO N 2(15), AS SHRI SOPARKAR RIGHTLY CONTENDS, HAS TO AN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES HINGES ON THE ALLEGATION THAT THE WAY AND MANNER IN WHICH CRICKET MATCHES AR E BEING ORGANIZED, PARTICULARLY THE IPL MATCHES, THE ACTIVITY OF ORGANIZING CRICKET MATCHES IS NOTHING BUT BRUTE COMMERCE. UNDOUBTEDLY, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT RIGHT F ROM THE TIME KERRY PACKER STARTED HIS WORLD SERIES CRICKET IN 1977, THERE HAS BEEN NO LOOKING BACK IN COMMERCIALIZATION OF CRICKET AND THE IMPACT OF THIS COMMERCIALIZATION HAS NOT LEFT ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 80 OF 151 INDIAN CRICKET INTACT. THE INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE AN D THE RULES OF THE GAME BEING GOVERNED BY THE DICTATES OF COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIO NS MAY SEEM TO BE ONE SUCH EXAMPLE OF COMMERCIALIZATION OF INDIAN CRICKET. THE DIFFICULTY FOR THE CASE OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US, HOWEVER, IS THAT THESE MATCHES A RE NOT BEING ORGANIZED BY THE LOCAL CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. WE ARE TOLD THAT THE MA TCHES ARE BEING ORGANIZED BY THE BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL OF INDIA, BUT THEN, IF WE ARE TO ACCEPT THIS CLAIM AND INVOKE THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) FOR THIS REASON, IT WI LL AMOUNT TO A SITUATION IN WHICH PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) IS BEING INVOKED ON ACCOUN T OF ACTIVITIES OF AN ENTITY OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEES- SOMETHING WHICH LAW DOES NOT PE RMIT. WE ARE NOT REALLY CONCERNED, AT THIS STAGE, WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS A BOUT COMMERCIALIZATION OF CRICKET BY THE BCCI ARE CORRECT OR NOT, BECAUSE THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER WOULD BE RELEVANT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) BE ING INVOKED IN THE HANDS OF THE BCCI. WE DONOT WISH TO DEAL WITH THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER OR TO MAKE ANY OBSERVATIONS WHICH WOULD PREJUDGE THE CASE OF THE B CCI. SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF REVENUES CASE IS DEVOID OF LEGALLY S USTAINABLE BASIS FOR THE SHORT REASON THAT THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF CRICKET BY THE BCCI, EVEN IF THAT BE SO, CANNOT BE REASON ENOUGH TO INVOKE THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15). WE ARE ALIVE O LEARNED COMMISSIONER (DR)S SUGGESTION THAT THE CRICKET ASS OCIATIONS CANNOT BE SEEN ON STANDALONE BASIS AS THE BCCI IS NOTHING BUT AN APEX BODY OF THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS AT A COLLECTIVE LEVEL AND WHATEVER BCC I DOES IS AT THE BEHEST OF OR WITH THE CONNIVANCE OF THE LOCAL CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, A ND THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT ANYONE CAN BECOME A MEMBER OF THE BCCI BECAUSE ONLY A RECOGNIZED CRICKET ASSOCIATION CAN BECOME A MEMBER OF THE BCCI. WE ARE ALSO ALIVE TO LEARNED ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 81 OF 151 COMMISSIONERS ARGUMENT THAT WHAT IS BEING SOUGHT T O BE PROTECTED BY THE CHARITABLE STATUS OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS IS THE SHARE OF THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS FROM THE COMMERCIAL PROFITS EARNED BY THE BCCI BY ORGANIZING THE CRICKET MATCHES. THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APE X BODY, AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED EARLIER, CANNOT BE REASON ENOUGH TO TRIGGER PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) IN THESE CASES. WHETHER THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS COLLECTIVELY CON STITUTE BCCI OR NOT, IN THE EVENT OF BCCI BEING INVOLVED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, TH E TAXABILITY OF SUCH COMMERCIAL PROFITS WILL ARISE IN THE HANDS OF THE BCCI AND NOT THE END BENEFICIARIES. EVEN IN SUCH A CASE THE POINT OF TAXABILITY OF THESE PROFIT S IS THE BCCI AND NOT THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, BECAUSE, EVEN GOING BY LEARNED COMMIS SIONERS ARGUMENTS, THESE RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS I S NOTHING BUT APPROPRIATION OF PROFITS. WHAT CAN BE TAXED IS ACCRUAL OF PROFITS AN D NOT APPROPRIATION OF PROFITS. IN ANY EVENT, DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CRICKET ASSOCIAT IONS AND THE BCCI CANNOT BE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX TREATMENT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE MATCHES WERE ORGANIZED BY THE BCCI, AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT THUS BE FAULTED FOR THE COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS SAID TO BE INHERENT IN PLANNING THE MATCHES. AS WE MAKE THESE OBSERVATIONS, AND AS WE DO NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HEARING THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BCCI, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS WILL HAVE NO BEARING ON ANY ADJUDICATION IN THE HANDS OF THE BCCI. SUFFICE TO S AY THAT SO FAR AS THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS ARE CONCERNED, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NO BEARING ON THE DENIAL OF THE STATUS OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES IN THE HANDS OF THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS BEFORE US- PARTICULARLY AS LEA RNED COMMISSIONER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT A SINGLE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE C RICKET ASSOCIATIONS WHICH IS IN THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 82 OF 151 NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, AND, AS IT I S NOT EVEN IN DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS BEING PURSUED BY THE ASSESSEE CRICKET ASSOC IATIONS ARE OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER SECTION 2(15). ALL THE OBJE CTS OF THE ASSESSEE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, AS REPRODUCED EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, UNAMBIGUOUSLY SEEK TO PROMOTE THE CRICKET, AND THIS OBJECT, AS HAS BEEN ALL ALONG ACC EPTED BY THE CBDT ITSELF, AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 36. CRICKET IS INDEED AN IMMENSELY POPULAR GAME IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD, AND ANYTHING TO DO WITH CRICKET RESULTS IN MASS INVOLVE MENT OF PUBLIC AT LARGE. THE SHEER STRENGTH OF THESE NUMBERS RESULTS IN HIGHER VISIBIL ITY OF CRICKETING ACTIVITIES AND THE SCALE OF OPERATIONS ON WHICH THE WORK FOR DEVELOPME NT OF CRICKET IS TO BE CARRIED OUT. THESE FACTS, BY ITSELF, AND WITHOUT THE ASSESS EES BEFORE US DEVIATING FROM THEIR OBJECTS OR VENTURING INTO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINE SS, CANNOT REQUIRE THE ACTIVITIES TO BE TREATED AS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. WHEN A CRIC KET STADIUM IS TO BE BUILT, IT HAS TO ACCOMMODATE A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS BUT THE SIZE OF THE STADIUM WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE ACTIVITY IS FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN P ROMOTION OF CRICKET.. WHEN THE NUMBERS ARE LARGE, THE SCALE OF OPERATIONS IS LARGE , AND WHEN SCALE OF OPERATIONS ARE LARGER, EVEN THE SURPLUS OR DEFICIT COULD BE LARGE, BUT THEN THE SCALE OF OPERATIONS MAY BE A SCALE ON WHICH COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES COULD BE CARRIED OUT BUT THAT FACT CANNOT CONVERT AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY INTO A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. WE HAVE CAREFULLY ANALYSED THE ANNUAL REPORTS AND THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY OBJECTS, OTHER THA N OBJECTS OF THE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS, BEING PURSED BY THESE CRICKET ASSOCIA TIONS. THE OBJECTS OF THESE CRICKET ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 83 OF 151 ASSOCIATIONS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS EXIST AND OPERATE PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING CRICKET. WE ARE , THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) HAS BEEN WRO NGLY INVOKED IN THESE CASES. 37. LET US ALSO QUICKLY DEAL WITH THE JUDICIAL PREC EDENTS CITED AT THE BAR AND IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AS REGARDS THE CA SE OF JALANDHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUPRA), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BINDING JUDICI AL PRECEDENT AS CONTRARY VIEW IN THE CASE OF HOSHIARPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST (SUPRA) STANDS APPROVED BY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST MONGA (SUPRA). TAMILANDU CRICKET ASSOCIATION DECISION (SUPRA) BY THE COORDINATE BENCH WAS DISAPPROVED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGMENT REPORTED AS TAMILNADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS CIT [(2014) 360 IT R 633 (MAD)]. AS REGARDS CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL JUDGMENT (SUPRA), THA T WAS A CASE IN WHICH ADMITTEDLY NO TRAINING, COACHING OR ASSISTANCE WAS PROVIDED TO THE PLAYERS OR ASPIRING PLAYERS AND THE ASSOCIATION WAS FORMED ONLY FOR WATCHING TH E MATCHES BY MAKING PAYMENT. IT WAS ON THESE FACTS THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS HELD TO BE NOT FOR ANY OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THIS CASE HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THE P RESENT CONTEXT SINCE ADMITTEDLY EVEN THE CBDT CIRCULAR TREATS THE CRICKET ASSOCIATI ONS AS PURSUING OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND THE DISPUTE IS CONFINED TO THE A LLEGED ELEMENT OF TRADE, COMMERCE AND BUSINESS IN SO PURSUING THE OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. AS REGARDS PECULIARITIES OF CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL CASE (SUPRA), THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HONBLE COURT ARE RELEVANT: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 84 OF 151 THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSOCIATION MERELY HELD CERTAIN DEMONSTRATION OR EXHIBITION MATCHES. IT DOE S NOT PROVIDE ANY TRAINING IN THE GAME OF CRICKET TO NOVICES OR ANY A DVANCED TRAINING FOR PERSONS WHO ARE ALREADY PRACTISED PLAYERS. ITS ACTI VITIES OUTSIDE THE HOLDING OF THE EXHIBITION MATCHES IS LIMITED ENTIRE LY TO ITS OWN MEMBERS. THE ONLY CONTACT IT HAS WITH THE PUBLIC IS BY WAY O F HAVING THEM AS SPECTATORS, ON PAYMENT OF A FEE, OF MATCHES ARRANGE D BY IT. I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT ANY BENEFIT OR ENTERTAINMEN T WHICH IS THUS PAID FOR AND WHICH IS AVAILED OF BY ONLY SUCH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS CAN OR WISH TO PAY FOR IT CAN IN ANY SENSE BE A PURPOSE OF A CHARITY. IT IS TRUE THAT CHARITY IN THE INCOME-TAX SENSE NEED NOT HAVE ANY E LEEMOSYNARY ELEMENT IN IT AND THAT AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX LAW A CHARITABLE OBJECT. INDEED, IF THE OBJECTS PRO FESSED BY THE ASSOCIATION ARE TO BE TREATED AS CHARITABLE OBJECTS AT ALL, THE Y CAN BE SO TREATED ONLY IF THEY CAN BE REGARDED AS OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY. I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THERE IS ANY GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, SO AS TO AMOUNT TO A CHARITY, IN ARRANGING FOR CRICKET MATCHES WHIC H THE PUBLIC CAN SEE ON PAYMENT 38. THE REVENUE THUS DOES NOT DERIVE ANY ADVANTAGE FROM CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGALS CASE (SUPRA). THE RELIANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THIS JUD ICIAL PRECEDENT, IS WHOLLY MISPLACED AND IN FACT CONTRARY TO THE STAND OF THE CBDT ON THIS ISSUE. THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 395 [F. NO. 181(5) 8 2/IT(A-I)], DATED 24-9-1984, ACCEPTS THE POSITIONS THAT A CRICKET ASSOCIATION, B EING A SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION FOR ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 85 OF 151 SPORTS, HAS ITS OBJECTS AS ADVANCEMENT OF OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, AND, FOR THIS REASON, IT FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. THE DISPUTE IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITIES BEING IN THE NATURE OF TR ADE, BUSINESS OR COMMERCE. CLEARLY, THIS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, IF HELD TO BE APPLICABLE O N THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WILL RESULT IN A MUCH HARSHER A POSITION THAN ACCEPTED BY THE CBDT . BE THAT AS IT MAY, THAT IS NOT THE SITUATION AND THIS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 39. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ENTERTAINMENT SOCIETY OF GOA (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS IN THE CASE OF TRI BUNE TRUST (SUPRA) AND SABARMATI GAUSHALA TRUST (SUPRA), WHICH UPHOLD THE CONTRARY VIEW, THIS COORDINATE BENCH DECISION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BINDING JUDICI AL PRECEDENT. 40. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, IN THE CASES OF VARIOUS OTHER CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS- DETAIL S OF WHICH ARE SET OUT EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, HOLDING THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) CA NNOT BE INVOKED IN THE CASES OF SUCH SIMILARLY PLACED CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, AND ALSO FOR THE DETAILED REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE UPHOLD T HE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE NOT REPRODUCING EXTRACTS FROM THESE DECISIONS, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, BUT WE ADOPT, AND CONCUR WITH, THE REASONING OF THESE DECISIONS. WHEN PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) CANNOT BE INVOKED ON THE FACTS OF THESE CASES, THE BENEFIT S OF SECTION 11 AND 12, WHICH WERE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 86 OF 151 DECLINED ONLY BY INVOKING THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15), COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECLINED ON THE FACTS OF THESE CASES. 41. WE HAVE NOTED THAT ALL THE LEARNED REPRESENTATI VES HAVE ADVANCED DETAILED ARGUMENTS ON THE PROPOSITION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE E CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS ARE ENGAGED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES, IT IS NOT REALLY MATERIA L WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED ITSELF IN THE ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF T RADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. HOWEVER, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR CATEGORICAL FINDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS WERE NOT REALLY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES IN THE NA TURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IT IS NOT REALLY NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS PLEA. WE LEAVE THE QUESTION OPEN FOR ADJUDICATION IN A FIT CASE. CONCLUSIONS ON THIS ISSUE: 42. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE IN ERROR IN INVOKING THE PRO VISO TO SECTION 2(15) AND THUS IN DECLINING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12 TO THE A PPELLANT CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS. TO THIS EXTENT, PLEA OF THE APPELLANTS MUST BE UPHELD. WE UPHOLD THE PLEA. INDIVIDUAL APPEALS 43. LET US NOW TAKE UP EACH APPEAL AND EACH GROUND OF APPEAL INDIVIDUALLY. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 87 OF 151 ITA NO 1257/ AHD/ 2013 44. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5 TH MARCH 2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 45. IN GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2, THE GRIEVANCES RAISED B Y THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOWS: (1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DENYING THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 11 INCLUDING 11(1)(B) AND HOL DING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. (2) (A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS CARRYING ON 'EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY', AND HENCE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2(15) W.E.F 01-04-2009, VIS-A-VIS 'BUSINESS' IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEE. (B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN HOLDING THAT ON THE FACTS OF CASE OF THE ASSEESEE PROVISO TO SEC. 2 (15) INSERTED W.E.F. 01-04- 2009 IS APPLICABLE, AND IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS. 46. SO FAR AS THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE CONCERNED , WE HAVE, IN OUR DETAILED ANALYSIS EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, HELD THAT THE PROVI SO TO SECTION 2(15) DOES NOT COME ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 88 OF 151 INTO PLAY ON THE FACTS OF THESE CASES. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EXTENT. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS HELD TO BE CAR RYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE MEANINGS OF THAT EXPRESSION UNDER SECTION 2(15) AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 11. AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES OR NOT, GIVEN OUR ABOVE FIND ING, THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS WHOLLY ACADEMIC AS ON NOW AND WE DECLINE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. 47. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE THUS ALLOWED IN THE TER MS INDICATED ABOVE. 48. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCES: (3) (A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RELE VANT EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM BCCI, RS.20,69,60,338/- IS TOWARDS CORPUS DONATION. HON. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE BCCI AGM RESOLUTION WH ICH PROVIDES THAT ALL FUTURE PAYMENTS BY BCCI SHALL BE TOWARDS CORPUS BY USING WORD 'HENCEFORTH'. (B) ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHEN THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE AOP AND SE CTION 2(15) HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE, THEN AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2 (24) (IIA) R.W.S. 13(8) ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 89 OF 151 AND 56, THE CORPUS DONATION OF RS.20,69,60,338/- CA NNOT BE ADDED AS INCOME. 49. AS REGARDS GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 3(A), WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E, VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08, AND WE HAV E OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 12. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CON CERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE U S IS A CRICKET ASSOCIATION, REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 186 0, AND IS ENGAGED IN PROMOTION OF CRICKET IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF GUJARAT STATE. IN THE COURSE OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS 1,58,00,000 FROM THE BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL OF INDIA (BCCI, IN SHORT) AS TOWARDS THE TV RIGHTS. WHEN HE PROBED THE MATTER FURTHER, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NOMENCLATURE OF THE RECEIPT APART, WHAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CORPUS DONAT ION AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO GET THE SAID MONEY FROM THE B CCI, UNDER A CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SIMILAR AMOUN TS RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN TREATED ALL ALONG AS CORPUS DONATIO NS, AND, THEREFORE, THE CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH TE RMED AS TV RIGHTS, IS NOT TAXABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THIS CONTENTI ON AS ALSO THE FACT THAT UNDER SECTION 11(1)(D), WHAT CANNOT BE INCLUDED AS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCOME BY WAY OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIO NS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 90 OF 151 DIRECTION THAT THEY SHALL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS O F THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHAT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE IS A SHARE OUT OF EARNINGS BY THE BCCI , OUT OF PROCEEDS OF SALE OF TV RIGHTS, AND IS, AS SUCH, TAXABLE AS INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION BY THE BCCI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SHOWS THAT AS ACCEPTED BY THE AUDITOR OF THE COMPANY THE AMOUNT IS RELATABLE TO THE TV RIGHTS AND IT CANNOT, THEREF ORE, BE TREATED AS VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION IN THE NATURE OF CORPUS DONATIONS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT AS REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER SECTION 12AA, S TANDS CANCELLED, THE ASSESSEE IS ANYWAY NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(1)(D). ON THE BASIS OF THIS LINE OF REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS 1,58,00,000 AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRI EVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE CIT(A) THAT THE BCCI HAS PASSED A SPECIF IC RESOLUTION THAT THE AMOUNT COMPUTED AS TV SUBSIDY IS GIVEN TO THE MEMBE R ASSOCIATIONS AS CORPUS DONATION. THE CIT(A), IDENTIFIED THE CORE IS SUE FOR ADJUDICATION AS FOLLOWS: THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION WHICH NOW ARISES IS WHETHER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION ONCE ISSUED IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(1)(D) OR SPECIFIC DIRECTION IS REQUIRED FOR EACH YEAR INDIVI DUALLY. HE THEN PROCEEDED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: AS PER SECTION 11(1)(D), A WRITTEN SPECIFIC DIRECTI ON IS NECESSARY TO CLAIM IT AS CORPUS DONATION. FOR A DONATION AS A CO RPUS DONATION, A ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 91 OF 151 WRITTEN DOCUMENT WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE D ONOR SHOULD BE OBTAINED AND SHOULD ACCOMPANY THE DONATION FROM THE DONOR. IN ABSENCE OF WRITTEN DIRECTION, FOR A DONATION IN A G IVEN ASSESSMENT YEAR, A DONATION WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CORPUS DONA TION AND THE ORGANIZATION (IN THIS CASE, GCA) WOULD NOT BE ENTIT LED TO CLAIM FULL EXEMPTION. TO ADD, DONATION COVERED BY A WRITTEN DO CUMENT BUT WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS CORPUS DONATION 13. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 15. WE FIND THAT, AT PAGES 46 AND 47 OF THE PAPERBO OK, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SPECIFIC CONFIRMATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SE AMOUNTS WERE CORPUS DONATIONS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE BCCI RESOLUTION NO 5 DATED 29 TH SEPTEMBER 2001 WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE T V SUBSIDIES SHOULD HENCEFORTH BE SENT TO THE MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS TOWAR DS CORPUS FUNDS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TV SUBSIDY IN QUESTION IS SENT UNDER THIS RESOLUTION. ON THESE FACTS, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(D) WHICH ONLY REQUIRE THE INCOME TO BE BY WA Y OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT T HEY SHALL FORM PART OF THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 92 OF 151 CORPUS OF THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ANY PAYMENTS MADE BY THE BCCI, WITHOUT A LEGAL OBLIGATI ON AND WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT SHALL BE FOR CORPUS FUND- AS ADMI TTEDLY THE PRESENT RECEIPT IS, IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS CORPUS DONATION NOT IN CLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY LEGAL SUPPORT FOR LEARNED CIT(A)S STAND THAT EACH DONATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SEPARATE WRITTEN DOCUMENT. THE CONTRIBUTION HAS TO BE VOLUNTARY AND IT HAS TO BE W ITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT WILL FORM CORPUS OF THE TRUST. THESE CONDITIONS AR E CLEARLY SATISFIED. ANY PAYMENT WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER AN OBLIGATI ON TO MAKE, WHATEVER BE THE MODE OF ITS COMPUTATION, IS A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT , AND, ANY PAYMENT WHICH IS WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT FOR CORPUS FUN D IS A CORPUS DONATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE TWO SPECIFIC CONF IRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE BCCI RESOLUTION UNDER WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE PAYMENT NOT BEING UNDER ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION, THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 11(1)(D) ARE SATISFIED. W E, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCO RDINGLY DIRECTED TO DELETE THIS ADDITION OF RS 1,58,00,000. 50. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE TV SUBSIDY OF RS 20,69,60,338 RECEIVED FROM THE BCCI AS A CORPUS DONATION. THE A SSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS SET OUT IN GROUND NO. 3 (A), WE SEE NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE ON T HE ALTERNATIVE PLEA SET OUT IN ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 93 OF 151 GROUND 3 (B). THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS RENDERED ACADEMIC AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION AS ON NOW. 51. GROUND NO. 3 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS IND ICATED ABOVE. 52. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCES: (4) (A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RELEVANT EVIDE NCES IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM BCCI RS.2,1 3,34,033/-, BEING INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY IS TOWARDS CAPITAL REC EIPT, WHEN THE AMOUNT BEING IN THE NATURE OF GRANT. HON. CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NO REBUTTAL TO TH E SAME (PARA 39 OF CIT(A) ORDER), (B) ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHEN THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE AOP A ND SECTION 2(15) HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE, THEN AS PER THE PROVISIO NS OF SEC. 2 (24) (IIA) R.W.S. 13(8) AND 56, THE CORPUS CAPITAL RECEI PT OF RS.2,13,34,033/- CANNOT BE ADDED AS INCOME. 53. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CON CERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INFRAS TRUCTURE SUBSIDY OF RS 3,52,86,521 ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 94 OF 151 FROM THE BCCI, OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZ ED THE SAME ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS 1,39,52,488 BY WAY OF PAYMENT TO DISTRICT CRICK ET ASSOCIATION, AND, THEREFORE, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS 2,13,34,033 IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS CONTENDED, AS EVIDENT FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX, IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT GIVIN G ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT WAS AN INFRASTRUCTURE SU BSIDY, IN THE NATURE OF CORPUS DONATION, AND, THEREFORE, OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF TAXA BLE INCOME. THE APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT YIELD ANY SUCCESS TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 54. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 55. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BCCI INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY RULES, WE FIND THAT WHAT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY IS REIMBURSEMENT OF 50% OF COSTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ON INFRASTRUCTURE WH ICH IS INHERENTLY IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. THE MERE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A REIMBURSEMENT TO AN OUTSIDE PARTY, SUCH AS A DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, DOES NOT REALLY MATTE R. AS LONG AS THE SUBSIDY IS RELATABLE TO A CAPITAL ASSET CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS O WN OR BY AN ELIGIBLE DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AS THE PRESENT SUBSIDY UNDISPUTEDLY IS , IT IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF REVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE INCOME. THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THUS DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERIT S. AS SUCH, THERE CAN HARDLY BE AN ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 95 OF 151 OCCASION, IN PRINCIPLE, TO HOLD SUCH A SUBSIDY AS A REVENUE RECEIPT OR TAXABLE INCOME. THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER OF A DISCUSSION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY IS REVENUE IN NATURE. A S A MATTER OF FACT, THE CLAIM IS MADE FOR THE SUBSIDY ONLY AFTER THE EXPENDITURE HAV ING BEEN INCURRED. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE CAS E AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO HOLD IT AS AN INCOME. LOO KING TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBSIDY, WHICH IS CLEARLY RELATABLE TO THE CAPITAL ASSETS GE NERATED, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THIS RECEIPT IN THE REVENUE FIELD. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 2,13,34 ,033. 56. GROUND NO. 4 (A) IS THUS ALLOWED, AND GROUND NO . 4(B) IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS AT THIS STAGE. 57. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DENYING EXEMPTION OF MUTUALITY INCOME VIS-A-VIS CLUB ACTIVITIES WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 58. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT AS THERE WAS NO AD JUDICATION ON THIS GRIEVANCE RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. THIS PLEA IS NOT OPPOSED BY THE LEARNED DR. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 96 OF 151 59. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, AND IN THE LIG HT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR AD JUDICATION ON MERITS. 60. GROUND NO. 5 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. 61. IN GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT DEPRECATION IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED ON ASSETS PURCHASE D IN PRIOR YEARS, WHICH AMOUNT OF PURCHASE HAS BEEN ALLOWED (WHEN NO SUCH C APITAL EXPENSES ARE ALLOWED IN PRIOR YEARS) AND HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTIN G THE DEPRECIATION ON CURRENT YEAR'S PURCHASES. IT IS CLAIMED THAT EVEN I F FULL PURCHASE COST IS ALLOWED (NOT ALLOWED ON FACTS) IN PRIOR YEARS, AS P ER JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, DEPRECIATION ON SUCH ASSETS IS TO B E ALLOWED. 62. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS CONCLUDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAJASTHANI & GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION [(2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC)] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE, INTER ALIA , OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT ALL THE ASSE SSEES ARE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE IN COME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT'). FOR THIS REASON, IN THE PREV IOUS YEAR TO THE YEAR WITH WHICH ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 97 OF 151 WE ARE CONCERNED AND IN WHICH YEAR THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED, THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASS ETS WAS TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES UNDER SECTION 11( 1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE D EPRECIATION WHICH WAS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT WAS THAT ONCE T HE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PUR POSES, THE ASSESSEES HAD VIRTUALLY ENJOYED A 100 PER CENT WRITE OFF OF THE C OST OF ASSETS AND, THEREFORE, THE GRANT OF DEPRECIATION WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING DOUBLE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH IT APPEARS THAT IN MOST OF THESE CASES, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD AFFIRMED THE VIEW, BUT THE ITAT REVERSED THE SAME AND THE HI GH COURTS HAVE ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGH COURTS, IT CAN BE DISCERNED THAT THE HIGH COURTS HAVE PRIMARILY FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN 'CIT V. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (I BPS)'[2003] 131 TAXMAN 386 . IN THE SAID JUDGMENT, THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTM ENT PREDICATED ON DOUBLE BENEFIT WAS TURNED DOWN IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: '3. AS STATED ABOVE, THE FIRST QUESTION WHICH REQUI RES CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT IS: WHETHER DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE ON THE ASSETS, THE COST OF WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCO ME UNDER SECTION 11 IN THE PAST YEARS? IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MUNISUVRAT JA IN 1994 TAX LAW REPORTER, 1084 THE FACTS WERE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSES SEE WAS A CHARITABLE TRUST. IT WAS REGISTERED AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRU ST. IT WAS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE. THE ASSE SSEE DERIVED INCOME ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 98 OF 151 FROM THE TEMPLE PROPERTY WHICH WAS A TRUST PROPERTY . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1977-78 , 1978-79 AND 1979- 80, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING @ 2% AND THEY ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON FURNITURE @ 5 %. THE QUESTION WHICH AROSE BEFORE THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION WAS : WHET HER DEPRECIATION COULD BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE, AS EXPENDITURE ON ACQUIS ITION OF THE ASSETS HAD BEEN TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE YEAR O F ACQUISITION? IT WAS HELD BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT SECTION 11 OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT MAKES PROVISION IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF TH E TRUST FROM THE PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND IT AL SO PROVIDES FOR APPLICATION AND ACCUMULATION OF INCOME. ON THE OTHE R HAND, SECTION 28 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DEALS WITH CHARGEABILITY OF INCO ME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND SECTION 29 PROVIDES THAT INCO ME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE W ITH SECTION 30 TO SECTION 43C. THAT, SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDE S FOR DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY OWNED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT FURTHER PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTIO N SUBJECT TO SECTION 34. IN THAT MATTER ALSO, A SIMILAR ARGUMENT, AS IN THE PRE SENT CASE, WAS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, NAMELY, THAT DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION ONLY UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT AND NOT UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES. THE COURT REJECTED THIS ARGUMEN T. IT WAS HELD THAT NORMAL DEPRECIATION CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A LEGITIMA TE DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE REAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON GENERA L PRINCIPLES OR UNDER ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 99 OF 151 SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE COURT R EJECTED THE ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT WAS THE ONLY SECTION GRANTING BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. IT WAS HELD THAT INCOME OF A CHARITABLE TRUST DERIVED FROM BUIL DING, PLANT AND MACHINERY AND FURNITURE WAS LIABLE TO BE COMPUTED I N NORMAL COMMERCIAL MANNER ALTHOUGH THE TRUST MAY NOT BE CARRYING ON AN Y BUSINESS AND THE ASSETS IN RESPECT WHEREOF DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED M AY NOT BE BUSINESS ASSETS. IN ALL SUCH CASES, SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT PROVIDING FOR DEPRECIATION FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS NOT APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 11 ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AFTER PROVIDING FOR ALLOWANCE FOR NORMAL DEPRECIATION AND DEDUCTION THE REOF FROM GROSS INCOME OF THE TRUST. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESATATED JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE ANSWER QUESTION NO. 1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. 4. QUESTION NO. 2 HEREIN IS IDENTICAL TO THE QUESTI ON WHICH WAS RAISED BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTO R OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) V. FRAMJEE CAWASJEE INSTITUTE [1993] 10 9 CTR 463. IN THAT CASE, THE FACTS WERE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE WAS T HE TRUST. IT DERIVED ITS INCOME FROM DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE TOOK I NTO ACCOUNT DEPRECIATION ON THOSE ASSETS IN COMPUTING THE INCOM E OF THE TRUST. THE ITO HELD THAT DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCO UNT BECAUSE, FULL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISI TION OF THE ASSETS. THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 100 OF 151 ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ASSISTANT APPELL ATE COMMISSIONER. THE APPEAL WAS REJECTED. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, TOOK TH E VIEW THAT WHEN THE ITO STATED THAT FULL EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN ALLOWED I N THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS, WHAT HE REALLY MEANT WAS THAT THE AM OUNT SPENT ON ACQUIRING THOSE ASSETS HAD BEEN TREATED AS 'APPLICATION OF IN COME' OF THE TRUST IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS SPENT IN ACQUIRING THO SE ASSETS. THIS DID NOT MEAN THAT IN COMPUTING INCOME FROM THOSE ASSETS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THOSE ASSETS CANNOT BE T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. HENCE, QUESTION NO. 2 IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. CONSEQUENT LY, QUESTION NO. 2 IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT.' 2. AFTER HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFORESAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CORRE CTLY STATES THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE S AME. 3. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT MOST OF THE HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN THE AFORESAID VIEW WITH ONLY EXCEPTION THERETO BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA WHICH HAS TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW IN 'LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS V. CI T [2012] 24 TAXMANN.COM 9/209 TAXMAN 19 (MAG.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED AT THIS STAGE THAT THE LEGISLATURE, REALISING THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THIS BEHALF IN THE INC OME-TAX ACT, HAS MADE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 101 OF 151 AMENDMENT IN SECTION 11(6) OF THE ACT VIDE FINANCE ACT NO. 2/2014 WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 . THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT THE SAID AM ENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. 5. IT ALSO FOLLOWS THAT ONCE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED DE PRECIATION, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD THE DEPRECIATION AS WELL. 63. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF HO NBLE SUPREME COURT, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO GRANT THE DEPRECIATION EVEN UPON FULL COST OF THE ASSET BEING ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 64. GROUND NO. 6 IS THUS ALLOWED. 65. IN GROUND NO. 7 TO 11, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: (7) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPREC IATION WHICH CLAIM IS SUPPORTED BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND OTHER HI GH COURTS' DECISIONS (AMOUNT AS MAY BE DETERMINED IN PURSUANCE TO APPELL ATE ORDERS FROM A.Y. 2004-05 TO 2008-09). (8) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS DENYING THE DEDUCTION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,61,70,970/ - AS ALLOWABLE. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 102 OF 151 (9) ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE INCLUDING DEPRECI ATION AND B/F DEFICIT AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSES SEE'S INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME. (10) ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT IF THE AMOU NT RECEIVED FROM BCCI RS.20,69,60,338/- IS NOT CONSIDERED AS CORPUS DONAT ION THEN THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE NATURE OF GRANT WITH SPECIAL P URPOSE TO UTILIZE THE SAME IN BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROMOTE CRICKET ETC. (11) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION OF 15% U/S 11(1)(B) AS COMPUTED AFTER MAK ING THE ADDITIONS. 66. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 10 ABOVE, THIS HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF THE RECEIPT IN QUESTION HAVING BEEN HELD TO BE IN CAPIT AL FIELD OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF INCOME. AS REGARDS ALL OTHER GRIEVANCES NOTED ABOVE , LEARNED COUNSEL FAIRLY STATES THAT THESE ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND WILL REQ UIRE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED IN R ESPECT OF THE SAME. THESE GRIEVANCES ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS AT THIS STA GE. 67. GROUND NOS. 7 TO 11 ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOU S. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 103 OF 151 68. IN THE RESULT, THE ITA NO 1257/AHD/13, I.E. GUJ ARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, IS THUS PAR TLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NO. 3303/AHD/16 69. WE NOW TAKE UP APPEAL FILED BY THE GUJARAT CR ICKET ASSOCIATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 70. IN GROUND NOS. 1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCES: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN A PPLYING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND CONSEQUENTLY SECTION 13(8) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 AND THERE BY REJECTING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 11 AND 12 CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSES AND THE HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE DECISION OF LEARNED A.O. 71. WE HAVE, IN OUR DETAILED ANALYSIS EARLIER IN TH IS ORDER, HELD THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY ON THE FACTS OF THESE CASES. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EXTENT. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS HELD TO BE CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE MEANI NGS OF THAT EXPRESSION UNDER SECTION 2(15) AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 11. 72. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 73. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCE: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 104 OF 151 THE LEARNED A.O. AND HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAVE ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN 'EDUCATION' AND HENCE THE PROVISION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) AND SECTION 13(8) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 74. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAG ED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, WE SEE NO NE ED TO DEAL WITH THIS ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 75. GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 76. IN GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4, WHICH WE WILL TAKE UP T OGETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 3. (I) THE LEARNED A.O. AND HON'BLE CIT( APPE ALS) HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAI M THAT VARIOUS AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM BCCI, VIZ. T.V. SUBSIDY, IPL SUBVENTI ON ETC ARE CORPUS DONATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN CREDITED AS CAPITAL RECEI PTS AND HOLDING THAT IT IS AN INCOME RECEIVED FROM BCCI. (II) THE LEARNED A.O. AND HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAV E ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE ABOVE CLAIM OF CORPUS DONATI ONS EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED A.O. IN THE CASE OF BCCI HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID TO VARIOUS STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS IN THE FORM OF T .V, RIGHTS, IPL SUBSIDY ETC IS A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT BY BCCI AND WHEN SUCH ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 105 OF 151 DISTRIBUTION BY BCCI HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED AS A DEDU CTION TO BCCI BY IT'S A.O. (II) ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF APPEAL . THE LEARNED A.O. AND HONBLE CIT(APPEALS) HAVE ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT WHEN EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12, IS NOT GRANTED TO ASSESSEE BY APPLYING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) AND SECTION 13(8), THE AMOUNTS PAID BY BCCI BEING NON C ONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS I.E. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT, THESE RECEIPTS ARE NOT INCOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(24) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS AN EXPENDITURE TOWARDS OBJECTS OF TR UST WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURTS AND HON. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 77. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES CAME UP FOR OUR A DJUDICATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND WE HAVE ALLOWED THE PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE TERMS INDICATED EARLIER IN THIS ORDER WHILE DEALING WITH THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER FOR TH IS ASSESSMENT YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE STAND TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA TO THAT EXTENT. AS REGARDS ALLOWING THE CAPITAL EXPEND ITURE TOWARDS OBJECT OF TRUST, THAT ISSUE IS INFRUCTUOUS AT THIS STAGE AND WILL COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 106 OF 151 ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER AND COMPUTING INCOME IN TERMS OF THE SECTION 11. THE AO SHALL DEAL WITH THE SAME BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. 78. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE ALLOWED IN THE TERMS IN DICATED ABOVE. 79. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT ALLOWING 15% OF INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF ACT BY NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME (THOUGH SUCH ADDITION IS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSEE) AND HON. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . 80. AS REGARDS THIS GRIEVANCE, ALL THAT LEARNED COU NSEL PRAYS IS THAT A DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, AFTER GIVING DEDUCTION OF 15%. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE DOES NOT OPPOSE THE PRAYER. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY. 81. GROUND NO. 5 IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 82. IN GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF MUTUALITY VIS-A-VIS THE INCOME OF MEMBERS' CLUB ACTIVITY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTS CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 107 OF 151 83. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT AS THERE WAS NO AD JUDICATION ON THIS GRIEVANCE RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. THIS PLEA IS NOT OPPOSED BY THE LEARNED DR. 84. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, AND IN THE LIG HT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR AD JUDICATION ON MERITS. 85. GROUND NO. 6 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. 86. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 3303/AHD/16 I.E. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TE RMS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NO. 3304/AHD/ 2016 87. WE NOW TAKE UP APPEAL FILED BY THE GUJARAT CR ICKET ASSOCIATION FOR 2011-12. 88. IN GROUND NOS. 1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCES: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN A PPLYING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND CONSEQUENTLY SECTION 13(8) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 AND THERE BY REJECTING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 11 AND 12 CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSES AND THE HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE DECISION OF LEARNED A.O. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 108 OF 151 89. WE HAVE, IN OUR DETAILED ANALYSIS EARLIER IN TH IS ORDER, HELD THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY ON THE FACTS OF THESE CASES. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EXTENT. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS HELD TO BE CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE MEANI NGS OF THAT EXPRESSION UNDER SECTION 2(15) AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 11. 90. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 91. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED A.O. AND HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAVE ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN 'EDUCATION' AND HENCE THE PROVISION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) AND SECTION 13(8) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 92. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAG ED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, WE SEE NO NE ED TO DEAL WITH THIS ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 93. GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 94. IN GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4, WHICH WE WILL TAKE UP T OGETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 3. (I) THE LEARNED A.O. AND HON'BLE CIT( APPE ALS) HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAI M THAT VARIOUS AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM BCCI, VIZ. T.V. SUBSIDY, IPL SUBVENTI ON ETC ARE CORPUS ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 109 OF 151 DONATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN CREDITED AS CAPITAL RECEI PTS AND HOLDING THAT IT IS AN INCOME RECEIVED FROM BCCI. (II) THE LEARNED A.O. AND HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAV E ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE ABOVE CLAIM OF CORPUS DONATI ONS EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED A.O. IN THE CASE OF BCCI HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID TO VARIOUS STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS IN THE FORM OF T .V, RIGHTS, IPL SUBSIDY ETC IS A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT BY BCCI AND WHEN SUCH DISTRIBUTION BY BCCI HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED AS A DEDU CTION TO BCCI BY IT'S A.O. (II) ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF APPEAL . THE LEARNED A.O. AND HONBLE CIT(APPEALS) HAVE ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT WHEN EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12, IS NOT GRANTED TO ASSESSEE BY APPLYING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) AND SECTION 13(8), THE AMOUNTS PAID BY BCCI BEING NON C ONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS I.E. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT, THESE RECEIPTS ARE NOT INCOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(24) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS AN EXPENDITURE TOWARDS OBJECTS OF TR UST WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURTS AND HON. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 110 OF 151 95. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES CAME UP FOR OUR A DJUDICATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND WE HAVE ALLOWED THE PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE TERMS INDICATED EARLIER IN THIS ORDER WHILE DEALING WITH THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER FOR TH IS ASSESSMENT YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE STAND TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA TO THAT EXTENT. AS REGARDS ALLOWING THE CAPITAL EXPEND ITURE TOWARDS OBJECT OF TRUST, THAT ISSUE IS INFRUCTUOUS AT THIS STAGE AND WILL COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER AND COMPUTING INCOME IN TERMS OF THE SECTION 11. THE AO SHALL DEAL WITH THE SAME BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. 96. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE ALLOWED IN THE TERMS IN DICATED ABOVE. 97. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT ALLOWING THE LOSS ON SALE OF LAMPS IN FLOOD LIGHTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND HON. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 98. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS THIS GRIEVANCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSE CUTION. 99. GROUND NO. 5 IS THUS DISMISSED. 100. IN GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT ALLOWING 15% OF INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF ACT BY NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME (THOUGH SUCH ADDITION IS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSEE) AND HON. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 111 OF 151 CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . 101. AS REGARDS THIS GRIEVANCE, ALL THAT LEARNED CO UNSEL PRAYS IS THAT A DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, AFTER GIVING DEDUCTION OF 15%. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE DOES NOT OPPOSE THE PRAYER. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY. 102. GROUND NO. 6 IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 103. IN GROUND NO. 7, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF MUTUALITY VIS-A-VIS THE INCOME OF MEMBERS' CLUB ACTIVITY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTS CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 104. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT AS THERE WAS NO A DJUDICATION ON THIS GRIEVANCE RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. THIS PLEA IS NOT OPPOSED BY THE LEARNED DR. 105. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, AND IN THE LI GHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR AD JUDICATION ON MERITS. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 112 OF 151 106. GROUND NO. 7 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 107. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 3304/AHD/16, I.E. APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TE RMS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NO. 408/AHD/17 108. WE NOW TAKE UP APPEAL FILED BY THE GUJARAT C RICKET ASSOCIATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 109. IN GROUND NOS. 1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCES: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN A PPLYING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND CONSEQUENTLY SECTION 13(8) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 AND THERE BY REJECTING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 11 AND 12 CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSES AND THE HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE DECISION OF LEARNED A.O. 110. WE HAVE, IN OUR DETAILED ANALYSIS EARLIER IN T HIS ORDER, HELD THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY ON THE FACTS OF THESE CASES. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EXTENT. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS HELD TO BE CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE MEANI NGS OF THAT EXPRESSION UNDER SECTION 2(15) AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 11. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 113 OF 151 111. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 112. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED A.O. AND HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAVE ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN 'EDUCATION' AND HENCE THE PROVISION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) AND SECTION 13(8) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 113. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGA GED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, WE SEE NO NE ED TO DEAL WITH THIS ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 114. GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 115. IN GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4, WHICH WE WILL TAKE UP TOGETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 3. (I) THE LEARNED A.O. AND HON'BLE CIT( APPE ALS) HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAI M THAT VARIOUS AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM BCCI, VIZ. T.V. SUBSIDY, IPL SUBVENTI ON ETC ARE CORPUS DONATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN CREDITED AS CAPITAL RECEI PTS AND HOLDING THAT IT IS AN INCOME RECEIVED FROM BCCI. (II) THE LEARNED A.O. AND HON'BLE CIT(APPEALS) HAV E ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE ABOVE CLAIM OF CORPUS DONATI ONS EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED A.O. IN THE CASE OF BCCI HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID TO ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 114 OF 151 VARIOUS STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS IN THE FORM OF T .V, RIGHTS, IPL SUBSIDY ETC IS A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT BY BCCI AND WHEN SUCH DISTRIBUTION BY BCCI HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED AS A DEDU CTION TO BCCI BY IT'S A.O. (II) ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF APPEAL . THE LEARNED A.O. AND HONBLE CIT(APPEALS) HAVE ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT WHEN EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12, IS NOT GRANTED TO ASSESSEE BY APPLYING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) AND SECTION 13(8), THE AMOUNTS PAID BY BCCI BEING NON C ONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS I.E. VOLUNTARY PAYMENT, THESE RECEIPTS ARE NOT INCOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(24) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS AN EXPENDITURE TOWARDS OBJECTS OF TR UST WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURTS AND HON. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 116. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES CAME UP FOR OUR ADJUDICATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND WE HAVE ALLOWED THE PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE TERMS INDICATED EARLIER IN THIS ORDER WHILE DEALING WITH THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER FOR TH IS ASSESSMENT YEAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE STAND TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA TO THAT EXTENT. AS REGARDS ALLOWING THE CAPITAL EXPEND ITURE TOWARDS OBJECT OF TRUST, THAT ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 115 OF 151 ISSUE IS INFRUCTUOUS AT THIS STAGE AND WILL COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER AND COMPUTING INCOME IN TERMS OF THE SECTION 11. THE AO SHALL DEAL WITH THE SAME BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. 117. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE ALLOWED IN THE TERMS I NDICATED ABOVE. 118. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT ALLOWING THE AMOUNT INVESTED RS. 10,50,00,000/- U/S 11(2) AS CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HON. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NO T ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 119. ON THIS GROUND ALSO, NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. IT IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE INASMUCH AS IT WILL COME UP FOR CONSIDERA TION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER AND COMPUTING INC OME IN TERMS OF THE SECTION 11. THE AO SHALL DEAL WITH THE SAME BY WAY OF A SPEAKIN G ORDER 120. GROUND NO. 5 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 121. IN GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT ALLOWING 15% OF INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF ACT BY NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME (THOUGH SUCH ADDITION IS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSEE) AND HON. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 116 OF 151 122. AS REGARDS THIS GRIEVANCE, ALL THAT LEARNED CO UNSEL PRAYS IS THAT A DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, AFTER GIVING DEDUCTION OF 15%. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE DOES NOT OPPOSE THE PRAYER. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY. 123. GROUND NO. 6 IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 124. IN GROUND NO. 7, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 125. EVEN THOUGH IN PRINCIPLE THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RAJ ASTHANI & GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUPRA), NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION AT TH IS STAGE. IT IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE INASMUCH AS IT WILL COME UP FOR CONSIDERATIO N BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER AND COMPUTING INC OME IN TERMS OF THE SECTION 11. THE AO SHALL DEAL WITH THE SAME BY WAY OF A SPEAKIN G ORDER 126. GROUND NO. 7 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 127. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 408/AHD/17 I.E. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TE RMS INDICATED ABOVE CONCLUSIONS- GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION 128. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 408/AHD/17, I.E. APPEAL OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS PARTLY ALLOWED I N THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. TO ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 117 OF 151 SUM UP, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY GUJARAT CRICK ET ASSOCIATION ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED IN THE ORDERS ABOVE. 129. WE WILL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEALS FILED BY BAROD A CRICKET ASSOCIATION. ITA NO: 336 /AHD/2015 130. THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDE R DATED 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10. 131. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 CHALLENGE REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. HOWEVER, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE DOES NOT W ISH TO PRESS THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THESE THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE SUMMARILY DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 132. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE DISMISSED. 133. IN GROUND NOS 4 TO 9, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) BEING INVOKED, A GAINST THE INCOME FROM CRICKETING ACTIVITIES BEING TREATED AS BUSINESS INC OME, AGAINST RESULTANT DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A), AND AGAINST CIT(A ) UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF THE AO OF TAXING INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM CORPUS FUNDS, SURPLUS FUNDS AS NON-CHARITABLE INCOME. THE DISPUTE BEFORE US ALSO INVOLVES THE TRE ATMENT OF RS 7,21,22,353 RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF CORPUS DONATION DESCRIBED AS TV SUBSI DY. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 118 OF 151 134. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS ON THE CORE ISSUE IN T HESE APPEALS BEFORE US, AS SET OUT EARLIER IN THIS ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 55 AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION ON THE ISSUE OF TV SUBS IDY- AS SET OUT AT PAGES 56 TO 58 EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE MUST SUCCEED ON THESE POINTS. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEVER WE DECID E IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, THE SAME WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THIS C ASE AS WELL. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THAT EXTENT. 135. GROUND NOS. 4 TO 9 ARE ALLOWED IN THE TERMS IN DICATED ABOVE. 136. IN GROUND NO 9, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ALT ERNATIVE PLEA TO THAT EFFECT THAT PROMOTING CRICKET IS COVERED BY EDUCATIONAL ACTIVIT IES, AND, FOR THIS REASON, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15) CANNOT BE INVOKED. 137. AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE MAIN PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE, AS SET OUT IN GROUND NOS. 4 TO 9, THIS PLEA IS RENDERED ACADEMIC AND DOES NOT C ALL FOR OUR ADJUDICATION AS ON NOW. 138. GROUND NO. 10 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 139. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO 336/AHD/15, I.E. ASSESSE ES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICA TED ABOVE. ITA NO.: 2957/AHD/2014 140. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 6 TH AUGUST 2014 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 119 OF 151 141. GROUND NOS, 1, 4, 5 AND 7, WHICH WE WILL TAKE UP TOGETHER, RAISE THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: 1. THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED IN APPLYING THE P ROVISION OF SECTION 13(8) R.W.S.2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS RETURN W AS FILED BASED ON FINANCE ACT, 2009 AND ON THAT DAY SECTION 13(8) WAS NOT EVEN IN THE STATUE BOOK. 4. THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING E XEMPTION U/S 11(L)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BASED ON PROVISION OF SECT ION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED IN TAXING THE INC OME FROM THE CRICKETING ACTIVITIES AS BUSINESS INCOME U/S 28 WITHOUT ESTABL ISHING THE SAID ACTIVITIES AS IN NATURE OF BUSINESS TRADE OR COMMERCE. 7. THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THAT IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y.2010-11 OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA ('BCCI' FOR SHORT) THAT TOO WITHOUT PROVIDING COPY OF SAID ORDE R. 142. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS ON THE CORE ISSUE IN T HESE APPEALS BEFORE US, AS SET OUT EARLIER IN THIS ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 55 AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION ON THE ISSUE, THE ASSES SEE MUST SUCCEED ON THESE POINTS. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 120 OF 151 LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, THE SAME WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THIS CASE AS WELL. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THESE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL TO THAT EXTENT IN PRINCIPLE. THERE IS, HOWEVER, A RIDER. IN THIS CASE , THERE IS ALSO A REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE ORGANIZING A ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL MATCH, ON COMMERCIAL SCALE, FOR FUND RAISING. THAT ISSUE IS DEALT WITH IN A SEPARATE GRO UND OF APPEAL. IN CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE SAID ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL MATCH IS IN THE NATU RE OF COMMERCIAL ADVENTURE, IT WILL HAVE THE IMPACT ON SECTION 2(15) BEING INVOKED. THA T GROUND IS SEPARATELY BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDI CATION, AND THE EVENTUAL DECISION ON THE SAME WILL ALSO HAVE THE IMPACT ON THESE ISSUES. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CITI(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN T HE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) AND THE FINDINGS ON THE SAID ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 143. GROUND NOS. 1,4,5 AND 7 ARE ALLOWED IN THE TER MS INDICATED ABOVE. 144. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 2. THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED IN WITHDRAWING EX EMPTION U/S 11(1)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS.4 CR. RECEIVED IN TH E FORM OF CORPUS DONATION. 145. AS REGARDS GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 3(A), WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E, VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08, AND WE HAV E OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 121 OF 151 12. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CON CERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE U S IS A CRICKET ASSOCIATION, REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 186 0, AND IS ENGAGED IN PROMOTION OF CRICKET IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF GUJARAT STATE. IN THE COURSE OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS 1,58,00,000 FROM THE BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL OF INDIA (BCCI, IN SHORT) AS TOWARDS THE TV RIGHTS. WHEN HE PROBED THE MATTER FURTHER, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NOMENCLATURE OF THE RECEIPT APART, WHAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CORPUS DONAT ION AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO GET THE SAID MONEY FROM THE B CCI, UNDER A CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SIMILAR AMOUN TS RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN TREATED ALL ALONG AS CORPUS DONATIO NS, AND, THEREFORE, THE CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH TE RMED AS TV RIGHTS, IS NOT TAXABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THIS CONTENTI ON AS ALSO THE FACT THAT UNDER SECTION 11(1)(D), WHAT CANNOT BE INCLUDED AS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCOME BY WAY OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIO NS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THEY SHALL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS O F THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHAT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE IS A SHARE OUT OF EARNINGS BY THE BCCI , OUT OF PROCEEDS OF SALE OF TV RIGHTS, AND IS, AS SUCH, TAXABLE AS INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION BY THE BCCI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SHOWS THAT AS ACCEPTED BY THE AUDITOR OF THE COMPANY THE AMOUNT ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 122 OF 151 IS RELATABLE TO THE TV RIGHTS AND IT CANNOT, THEREF ORE, BE TREATED AS VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION IN THE NATURE OF CORPUS DONATIONS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT AS REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER SECTION 12AA, S TANDS CANCELLED, THE ASSESSEE IS ANYWAY NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(1)(D). ON THE BASIS OF THIS LINE OF REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS 1,58,00,000 AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRI EVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE CIT(A) THAT THE BCCI HAS PASSED A SPECIF IC RESOLUTION THAT THE AMOUNT COMPUTED AS TV SUBSIDY IS GIVEN TO THE MEMBE R ASSOCIATIONS AS CORPUS DONATION. THE CIT(A), IDENTIFIED THE CORE IS SUE FOR ADJUDICATION AS FOLLOWS: THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION WHICH NOW ARISES IS WHETHER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION ONCE ISSUED IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(1)(D) OR SPECIFIC DIRECTION IS REQUIRED FOR EACH YEAR INDIVI DUALLY. HE THEN PROCEEDED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: AS PER SECTION 11(1)(D), A WRITTEN SPECIFIC DIRECTI ON IS NECESSARY TO CLAIM IT AS CORPUS DONATION. FOR A DONATION AS A CO RPUS DONATION, A WRITTEN DOCUMENT WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE D ONOR SHOULD BE OBTAINED AND SHOULD ACCOMPANY THE DONATION FROM THE DONOR. IN ABSENCE OF WRITTEN DIRECTION, FOR A DONATION IN A G IVEN ASSESSMENT YEAR, A DONATION WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CORPUS DONA TION AND THE ORGANIZATION (IN THIS CASE, GCA) WOULD NOT BE ENTIT LED TO CLAIM FULL ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 123 OF 151 EXEMPTION. TO ADD, DONATION COVERED BY A WRITTEN DO CUMENT BUT WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS CORPUS DONATION 13. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 15. WE FIND THAT, AT PAGES 46 AND 47 OF THE PAPERBO OK, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SPECIFIC CONFIRMATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SE AMOUNTS WERE CORPUS DONATIONS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE BCCI RESOLUTION NO 5 DATED 29 TH SEPTEMBER 2001 WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE T V SUBSIDIES SHOULD HENCEFORTH BE SENT TO THE MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS TOWAR DS CORPUS FUNDS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TV SUBSIDY IN QUESTION IS SENT UNDER THIS RESOLUTION. ON THESE FACTS, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(D) WHICH ONLY REQUIRE THE INCOME TO BE BY WA Y OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT T HEY SHALL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ANY PAYMENTS MADE BY THE BCCI, WITHOUT A LEGAL OBLIGATI ON AND WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT SHALL BE FOR CORPUS FUND- AS ADMI TTEDLY THE PRESENT RECEIPT IS, IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS CORPUS DONATION NOT IN CLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY LEGAL SUPPORT FOR LEARNED CIT(A)S STAND THAT EACH DONATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SEPARATE WRITTEN DOCUMENT. THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 124 OF 151 CONTRIBUTION HAS TO BE VOLUNTARY AND IT HAS TO BE W ITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT WILL FORM CORPUS OF THE TRUST. THESE CONDITIONS AR E CLEARLY SATISFIED. ANY PAYMENT WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER AN OBLIGATI ON TO MAKE, WHATEVER BE THE MODE OF ITS COMPUTATION, IS A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT , AND, ANY PAYMENT WHICH IS WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT FOR CORPUS FUN D IS A CORPUS DONATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE TWO SPECIFIC CONF IRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE BCCI RESOLUTION UNDER WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE PAYMENT NOT BEING UNDER ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION, THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 11(1)(D) ARE SATISFIED. W E, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCO RDINGLY DIRECTED TO DELETE THIS ADDITION OF RS 1,58,00,000. 146. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF TH E MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE TV SUBSIDY OF RS 4,00,00,000 RECEIVED FROM THE BCCI AS A CORPUS DONATION. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 147. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 148. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 3. THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED IN WITHDRAWING EX EMPTION U/S 11(1)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS.30,53,888/- RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF CORPUS DONATION IN FORM OF INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 125 OF 151 149. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION , AND WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE SAID CASE WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL. 150. VIDE OUR DECISION EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, WE HA VE UPHELD SIMILAR CLAIM OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND OBSERVED, INTER ALI A, AS FOLLOWS: 51. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BCCI INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY RULES, WE FIND THAT WHAT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS INFRASTRUCTURE SUB SIDY IS REIMBURSEMENT OF 50% OF COSTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ON I NFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS INHERENTLY IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. THE MERE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A REIMBURSEMENT TO AN OUTSIDE PARTY, SUCH AS A DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCI ATION, DOES NOT REALLY MATTER. AS LONG AS THE SUBSIDY IS RELATABLE TO A CAPITAL AS SET CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN OR BY AN ELIGIBLE DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOC IATION, AS THE PRESENT SUBSIDY UNDISPUTEDLY IS, IT IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF REVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE INCOME. THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS THUS DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. AS SUCH, THE RE CAN HARDLY BE AN OCCASION, IN PRINCIPLE, TO HOLD SUCH A SUBSIDY AS A REVENUE RECEIPT OR TAXABLE INCOME. THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER OF A DISCUSSION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY IS REVENU E IN NATURE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CLAIM IS MADE FOR THE SUBSIDY ONLY AFTER THE EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO HOLD I T AS AN INCOME. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBSIDY, WHICH IS CLEARLY RELATAB LE TO THE CAPITAL ASSETS ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 126 OF 151 GENERATED, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THIS RECEIPT IN TH E REVENUE FIELD. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 2,13,34,033. 151. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, IN PRINCIPLE, IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, AS RELEVANT FACTS NED TO BE EXAMINED, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN TH E LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 152. GROUND NO. 3 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 153. IN GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 6. THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT HOSTING OF ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL MATCH ('ODI' FOR SHORT) IS ONE OFF ADVENTURE TO RAISE FUNDS TO CARRY OUT OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE INCOME FROM SAID ODI CANNOT TAKE COLOUR OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OR INCO ME. 154. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THERE ARE FINDINGS TO THE ABOVE EFFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE SA ME IN A VERY CAUSAL MANNER AND WITHOUT SPECIFIC AND CATEGORICAL DISCUSSIONS ON THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE ORDER SO. AS WE DO SO, AND FOR THE DETAILED REASONS SET OUT E ARLIER WHILE DEALING WITH GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS CASE, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS ONLY IN THE EVENT OF THIS EVENT BEING ORGANIZED BY THE APPELLANT CRICKET ASSOCIATIO N ON ITS OWN, RATHER THAN UNDER ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 127 OF 151 ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANNING BY THE BCCI, THAT THIS CO ULD BE PUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. 155. GROUND NO. 6 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES IN THE ABOVE TERMS. 156. IN GROUND NO. 8, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE C.I.T. (APPEAL S) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING OBJECTS OF IMPARTING OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CRICKET IS PROMOTION OF EDUCATION AS IT IS ONE OF THE CHAPTER IN THE PHY SICAL EDUCATION AND IT IS FALLS UNDER EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE UNDER CHARITABLE PU RPOSE U/S 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX 1961 AND THEREFORE IT DOES NOT ATTRA CT PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT ACCORDINGLY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(8) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE NOT APPLICABLE . 157. AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE MAIN PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE, AS SET OUT IN GROUND NOS. 4 TO 9, THIS PLEA IS RENDERED ACADEMIC AND DOES NOT C ALL FOR OUR ADJUDICATION AS ON NOW. 158. GROUND NO. 8 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 159. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO 2957/AHD/14, I.E. ASSESS EES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICA TED ABOVE. ITA NO. 337/AHD/ 15 160. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 10 TH NOVEMBER 2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER O F ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 128 OF 151 161. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS AS FOLLOWS: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.1, 77,788/- OF INTEREST IN INCOME TAX REFUND WHICH WAS ALREADY SHOWN AS INC OME ON 31.03.2013 I.E. IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13, AS NECES SARY INTIMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN F.Y. 2012-2013. 162. AS NO SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED I N RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GRIEVANCE, AND CONSIDERING SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT, IT IS TREATED AS NOT PRESSED. IT IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 163. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS DISMISSED. 164. IN GROUND NOS. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 AND 9, WHICH WE W ILL TAKE UP TOGETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF APPELLANTS CA SE AS WELL AS IN LAW, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(8) R.W. S. 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SHOULD NOT BE MADE APPLICABLE AS RETU RN WAS FILED BASED ON FINANCE ACT, 2009 AND ON THAT DAY SECTION 13(8) WAS NOT EVEN IN THE STATUTE BOOK. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING VIEW OF THE L D. AO OF APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(8) R.W.S. 2(15) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 ON WHOLE OF THE INCOME OF YOUR APPELLANT WHEREAS SECTI ON 13(8) CLEARLY ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 129 OF 151 SPEAKS ABOUT DENYING EXEMPTION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH IS COVERED BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AND NOT ENTIRE INCOME. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT TH E LD. AO HAS MADE HIGH PITCHED ASSESSMENT BY TAKING BASE FROM THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2010-11 PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE BOARD OF CON TROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA (BCCI FOR SHORT) THAT TOO WITHOUT PROVIDING COPY OF SAID ORDER TO APPELLANT. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING VIEW OF LD. AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON PROVISION OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING VIEW OF LD. AO OF TAXING THE INCOME OF APPELLANT FROM THE CRICKETING ACTIVITIES AS BUSI NESS INCOME U/S.28 WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE SAID ACTIVITIES AS IN NATU RE OF BUSINESS TRADE OR COMMERCE. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING VIEW OF LD. AO OF TAXING INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM CORPUS FUNDS/SURPLUS FUNDS AS NO N-CHARITABLE INCOME. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 130 OF 151 165. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS ON THE CORE ISSUE IN T HESE APPEALS BEFORE US, AS SET OUT EARLIER IN THIS ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 55 AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION ON THE ISSUE, THE ASSES SEE MUST SUCCEED ON THESE POINTS. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, THE SAME WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THIS CASE AS WELL. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THESE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL TO THAT EXTENT IN PRINCIPLE. THERE IS, HOWEVER, A RIDER. IN THIS CASE , THERE IS ALSO A REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE ORGANIZING A ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL MATCH, ON COMMERCIAL SCALE, FOR FUND RAISING. THAT ISSUE IS DEALT WITH IN A SEPARATE GRO UND OF APPEAL. IN CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE SAID ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL MATCH IS IN THE NATU RE OF COMMERCIAL ADVENTURE, IT WILL HAVE THE IMPACT ON SECTION 2(15) BEING INVOKED. THA T GROUND IS SEPARATELY BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDI CATION, AND THE EVENTUAL DECISION ON THE SAME WILL ALSO HAVE THE IMPACT ON THESE ISSUES. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CITI(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN T HE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) AND THE FINDINGS ON THE SAID ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 166. GROUND NOS. 2,3,4,7,8 AND 9 ARE ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 167. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING VIEW OF LD. AO OF WITHDRAWING EXEMPTION U/S 11(1)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS.10.53 CR. RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF CORPUS DONATION. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 131 OF 151 168. THE ABOVE GRIEVANCE, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE TV SUBSIDY RECEIVED AS CORPUS DONATION, IS ALSO A COVERED ISSUE NOW IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. 169. VIDE OUR DECISION EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, WE HA VE UPHELD SIMILAR CLAIM OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AS ALSO IN ASSESSEES O WN CASES, AND OBSERVED, INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS: 12. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CON CERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE U S IS A CRICKET ASSOCIATION, REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 186 0, AND IS ENGAGED IN PROMOTION OF CRICKET IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF GUJARAT STATE. IN THE COURSE OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS 1,58,00,000 FROM THE BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL OF INDIA (BCCI, IN SHORT) AS TOWARDS THE TV RIGHTS. WHEN HE PROBED THE MATTER FURTHER, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NOMENCLATURE OF THE RECEIPT APART, WHAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CORPUS DONAT ION AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO GET THE SAID MONEY FROM THE B CCI, UNDER A CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SIMILAR AMOUN TS RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN TREATED ALL ALONG AS CORPUS DONATIO NS, AND, THEREFORE, THE CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH TE RMED AS TV RIGHTS, IS NOT TAXABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THIS CONTENTI ON AS ALSO THE FACT THAT UNDER SECTION 11(1)(D), WHAT CANNOT BE INCLUDED AS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 132 OF 151 ASSESSEE IS INCOME BY WAY OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIO NS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THEY SHALL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS O F THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHAT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE IS A SHARE OUT OF EARNINGS BY THE BCCI , OUT OF PROCEEDS OF SALE OF TV RIGHTS, AND IS, AS SUCH, TAXABLE AS INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION BY THE BCCI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SHOWS THAT AS ACCEPTED BY THE AUDITOR OF THE COMPANY THE AMOUNT IS RELATABLE TO THE TV RIGHTS AND IT CANNOT, THEREF ORE, BE TREATED AS VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION IN THE NATURE OF CORPUS DONATIONS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT AS REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER SECTION 12AA, S TANDS CANCELLED, THE ASSESSEE IS ANYWAY NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(1)(D). ON THE BASIS OF THIS LINE OF REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS 1,58,00,000 AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRI EVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE CIT(A) THAT THE BCCI HAS PASSED A SPECIF IC RESOLUTION THAT THE AMOUNT COMPUTED AS TV SUBSIDY IS GIVEN TO THE MEMBE R ASSOCIATIONS AS CORPUS DONATION. THE CIT(A), IDENTIFIED THE CORE IS SUE FOR ADJUDICATION AS FOLLOWS: THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION WHICH NOW ARISES IS WHETHER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION ONCE ISSUED IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(1)(D) OR SPECIFIC DIRECTION IS REQUIRED FOR EACH YEAR INDIVI DUALLY. HE THEN PROCEEDED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 133 OF 151 AS PER SECTION 11(1)(D), A WRITTEN SPECIFIC DIRECTI ON IS NECESSARY TO CLAIM IT AS CORPUS DONATION. FOR A DONATION AS A CO RPUS DONATION, A WRITTEN DOCUMENT WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE D ONOR SHOULD BE OBTAINED AND SHOULD ACCOMPANY THE DONATION FROM THE DONOR. IN ABSENCE OF WRITTEN DIRECTION, FOR A DONATION IN A G IVEN ASSESSMENT YEAR, A DONATION WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CORPUS DONA TION AND THE ORGANIZATION (IN THIS CASE, GCA) WOULD NOT BE ENTIT LED TO CLAIM FULL EXEMPTION. TO ADD, DONATION COVERED BY A WRITTEN DO CUMENT BUT WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS CORPUS DONATION 13. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 15. WE FIND THAT, AT PAGES 46 AND 47 OF THE PAPERBO OK, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SPECIFIC CONFIRMATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SE AMOUNTS WERE CORPUS DONATIONS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE BCCI RESOLUTION NO 5 DATED 29 TH SEPTEMBER 2001 WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE T V SUBSIDIES SHOULD HENCEFORTH BE SENT TO THE MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS TOWAR DS CORPUS FUNDS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TV SUBSIDY IN QUESTION IS SENT UNDER THIS RESOLUTION. ON THESE FACTS, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 134 OF 151 11(1)(D) WHICH ONLY REQUIRE THE INCOME TO BE BY WA Y OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT T HEY SHALL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ANY PAYMENTS MADE BY THE BCCI, WITHOUT A LEGAL OBLIGATI ON AND WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT SHALL BE FOR CORPUS FUND- AS ADMI TTEDLY THE PRESENT RECEIPT IS, IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS CORPUS DONATION NOT IN CLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY LEGAL SUPPORT FOR LEARNED CIT(A)S STAND THAT EACH DONATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SEPARATE WRITTEN DOCUMENT. THE CONTRIBUTION HAS TO BE VOLUNTARY AND IT HAS TO BE W ITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT WILL FORM CORPUS OF THE TRUST. THESE CONDITIONS AR E CLEARLY SATISFIED. ANY PAYMENT WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER AN OBLIGATI ON TO MAKE, WHATEVER BE THE MODE OF ITS COMPUTATION, IS A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT , AND, ANY PAYMENT WHICH IS WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT IT FOR CORPUS FUN D IS A CORPUS DONATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE TWO SPECIFIC CONF IRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE BCCI RESOLUTION UNDER WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE PAYMENT NOT BEING UNDER ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION, THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 11(1)(D) ARE SATISFIED. W E, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCO RDINGLY DIRECTED TO DELETE THIS ADDITION OF RS 1,58,00,000 170. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, IN PRINCIPLE, IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, AS RELEVANT FACTS NED TO BE EXAMINED, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN TH E LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 135 OF 151 171. GROUND NO.5 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 172. IN GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING VIEW OF LD. AO OF WITHDRAWING EXEMPTION U/S 11(1)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS.1.92 CR. RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF CORPUS DONATION. 173. THIS AMOUNT OF RS 1.92 CRORES, AS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IS IN RESPECT OF INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY. LEA RNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AND WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE SAID CAS E WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL. 174. VIDE OUR DECISION EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, WE HA VE UPHELD SIMILAR CLAIM OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND OBSERVED, INTER ALI A, AS FOLLOWS: 51. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BCCI INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY RULES, WE FIND THAT WHAT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS INFRASTRUCTURE SUB SIDY IS REIMBURSEMENT OF 50% OF COSTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ON I NFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS INHERENTLY IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. THE MERE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A REIMBURSEMENT TO AN OUTSIDE PARTY, SUCH AS A DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCI ATION, DOES NOT REALLY MATTER. AS LONG AS THE SUBSIDY IS RELATABLE TO A CAPITAL AS SET CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN OR BY AN ELIGIBLE DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOC IATION, AS THE PRESENT ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 136 OF 151 SUBSIDY UNDISPUTEDLY IS, IT IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF REVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE INCOME. THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS THUS DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. AS SUCH, THE RE CAN HARDLY BE AN OCCASION, IN PRINCIPLE, TO HOLD SUCH A SUBSIDY AS A REVENUE RECEIPT OR TAXABLE INCOME. THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER OF A DISCUSSION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY IS REVENU E IN NATURE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CLAIM IS MADE FOR THE SUBSIDY ONLY AFTER THE EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO HOLD I T AS AN INCOME. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBSIDY, WHICH IS CLEARLY RELATAB LE TO THE CAPITAL ASSETS GENERATED, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THIS RECEIPT IN TH E REVENUE FIELD. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 2,13,34,033. 175. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, IN PRINCIPLE, IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, AS RELEVANT FACTS NED TO BE EXAMINED, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN TH E LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 176. GROUND NO. 6 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 177. IN GROUND NO. 10, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 137 OF 151 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT HOSTING OF ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL MATCH (ODI FOR SHORT) IS ONE OF ADVENTURE TO RAISE FUNDS TO CARRY OUT OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE INCOM E FROM SAID ODI CANNOT TAKE COLOUR OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OR INCO ME. 178. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THERE ARE FINDINGS TO THE ABOVE EFFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE SA ME IN A VERY CAUSAL MANNER AND WITHOUT SPECIFIC AND CATEGORICAL DISCUSSIONS ON THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE ORDER SO. AS WE DO SO, AND FOR THE DETAILED REASONS SET OUT E ARLIER WHILE DEALING WITH GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATIONS CASE, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS ONLY IN THE EVENT OF THIS EVENT BEING ORGANIZED BY THE APPELLANT CRICKET ASSOCIATIO N ON ITS OWN, RATHER THAN UNDER ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANNING BY THE BCCI, THAT THIS CO ULD BE PUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. 179. GROUND NO. 10 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE ABOVE TERMS. 180. IN GROUND NO. 11, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVE PLEA: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE APPELLANT STATES THA T OBJECTS OF IMPARTING OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CRICKETS PROMOTION OF EDUCATION AS IT IS ONE OF THE CHAPTER IN THE PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND IT FALLS UNDER EDUCAT IONAL PURPOSE UNDER CHARITABLE PURPOSE U/S 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE IT ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 138 OF 151 DOES NOT ATTRACT PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE AC T ACCORDINGLY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(8) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE NO T APPLICABLE. 181. AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE MAIN PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE, AS SET OUT IN GROUND NOS. 4 TO 9, THIS PLEA IS RENDERED ACADEMIC AND DOES NOT C ALL FOR OUR ADJUDICATION AS ON NOW. 182. GROUND NO.11 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. CONCLUSIONS- BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION 183. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO 337/AHD/15, I.E. ASSESSE ES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICAT ED ABOVE. TO SUM UP, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED IN THE ORDERS ABOVE. 184. WE WILL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEALS FILED BY SAURA SHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION. ITA NO. 2839/AHD/17 185. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26 TH OCTOBER 2017 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 186. IN GROUND NOS. 1,2 AND 3, WHICH WE WILL TAKE U P TOGETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 139 OF 151 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF HOLDING THAT THE APP ELLANT IS NOT CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF S ECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF APPLYING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 13(8) OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF DENYING THE EXEMPTIO N CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 187. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS ON THE CORE ISSUE IN T HESE APPEALS BEFORE US, AS SET OUT EARLIER IN THIS ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 55 AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND BARODA CRICKET ASSO CIATION ON THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE MUST SUCCEED ON THESE POINTS. LEARNED REPR ESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET A SSOCIATION AND BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, THE SAME WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THIS C ASE AS WELL. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THAT EXTENT. 188. GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 ARE THUS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 189. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTI ON OF RS.4,57,95,448/- CLAIMED U/S.11(1)(D) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 140 OF 151 190. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS 4,5 7,95,448 REPRESENTS INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAI RLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRIC KET ASSOCIATION AND BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AND WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE SAID CASE WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL. 191. VIDE OUR DECISION EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, WE HA VE UPHELD SIMILAR CLAIM OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND OBSERVED, INTER ALI A, AS FOLLOWS: 51. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BCCI INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY RULES, WE FIND THAT WHAT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS INFRASTRUCTURE SUB SIDY IS REIMBURSEMENT OF 50% OF COSTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ON I NFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS INHERENTLY IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. THE MERE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A REIMBURSEMENT TO AN OUTSIDE PARTY, SUCH AS A DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCI ATION, DOES NOT REALLY MATTER. AS LONG AS THE SUBSIDY IS RELATABLE TO A CAPITAL AS SET CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN OR BY AN ELIGIBLE DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOC IATION, AS THE PRESENT SUBSIDY UNDISPUTEDLY IS, IT IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF REVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE INCOME. THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS THUS DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. AS SUCH, THE RE CAN HARDLY BE AN OCCASION, IN PRINCIPLE, TO HOLD SUCH A SUBSIDY AS A REVENUE RECEIPT OR TAXABLE INCOME. THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER OF A DISCUSSION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY IS REVENU E IN NATURE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CLAIM IS MADE FOR THE SUBSIDY ONLY AFTER THE EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE CASE AND THE ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 141 OF 151 SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO HOLD I T AS AN INCOME. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBSIDY, WHICH IS CLEARLY RELATAB LE TO THE CAPITAL ASSETS GENERATED, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THIS RECEIPT IN TH E REVENUE FIELD. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 2,13,34,033. 192. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, IN PRINCIPLE, IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, AS RELEVANT FACTS NED TO BE EXAMINED, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN TH E LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 193. GROUND NO. 4 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 194. IN GROUND NO. 5 & 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTI ON OF RS.23,44,45,066/- CLAIMED U/S.11(2) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTI ON OF RS.5,37,04,677/- CLAIMED U/S. 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 142 OF 151 195. THE ABOVE RELIEF ARE ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL IN NAT URE INASMUCH THESE EXEMPTIONS WERE DENIED ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE BEING HELD TO BE NOT INVOLVED IN A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. NOW THE IS SUE REGARDING CHARITABLE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEQUENT EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 11, IS DECIDED ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CONSEQUENCES W ILL FOLLOW. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GRANTING CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF THE LAW. 196. GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES IN THE ABOVE TERMS. 197. NO OTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES AN Y SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION BY US. 198. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 2839/AHD/17, I.E. ASSE SSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICAT ED ABOVE. ITA NO. 2840/AHD/17 199. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26 TH OCTOBER 2017 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 200. IN GROUND NOS. 1,2 AND 3, WHICH WE WILL TAKE U P TOGETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 143 OF 151 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF HOLDING THAT THE APP ELLANT IS NOT CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF S ECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF APPLYING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 13(8) OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF DENYING THE EXEMPTIO N CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 201. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS ON THE CORE ISSUE IN T HESE APPEALS BEFORE US, AS SET OUT EARLIER IN THIS ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 55 AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND BARODA CRICKET ASSO CIATION ON THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE MUST SUCCEED ON THESE POINTS. LEARNED REPR ESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET A SSOCIATION AND BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, THE SAME WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THIS C ASE AS WELL. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THAT EXTENT. 202. GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 ARE THUS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 203. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTI ON OF RS. 12,71,29,375 CLAIMED U/S.11(1)(D) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 144 OF 151 204. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS 12, 71,39,375 REPRESENTS INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAI RLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRIC KET ASSOCIATION AND BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AND WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE SAID CASE WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL. 205. VIDE OUR DECISION EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, WE HA VE UPHELD SIMILAR CLAIM OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND OBSERVED, INTER ALI A, AS FOLLOWS: 51. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BCCI INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY RULES, WE FIND THAT WHAT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS INFRASTRUCTURE SUB SIDY IS REIMBURSEMENT OF 50% OF COSTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ON I NFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS INHERENTLY IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. THE MERE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A REIMBURSEMENT TO AN OUTSIDE PARTY, SUCH AS A DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCI ATION, DOES NOT REALLY MATTER. AS LONG AS THE SUBSIDY IS RELATABLE TO A CAPITAL AS SET CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN OR BY AN ELIGIBLE DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOC IATION, AS THE PRESENT SUBSIDY UNDISPUTEDLY IS, IT IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF REVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE INCOME. THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS THUS DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. AS SUCH, THE RE CAN HARDLY BE AN OCCASION, IN PRINCIPLE, TO HOLD SUCH A SUBSIDY AS A REVENUE RECEIPT OR TAXABLE INCOME. THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER OF A DISCUSSION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY IS REVENU E IN NATURE. AS A MATTER OF ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 145 OF 151 FACT, THE CLAIM IS MADE FOR THE SUBSIDY ONLY AFTER THE EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO HOLD I T AS AN INCOME. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBSIDY, WHICH IS CLEARLY RELATAB LE TO THE CAPITAL ASSETS GENERATED, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THIS RECEIPT IN TH E REVENUE FIELD. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 2,13,34,033. 206. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, IN PRINCIPLE, IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, AS RELEVANT FACTS NED TO BE EXAMINED, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN TH E LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 207. GROUND NO. 4 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 208. IN GROUND NO. 5 & 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTI ON OF RS.27,50,00,000 CLAIMED U/S.11(2) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTI ON OF RS.6,41,38,215 CLAIMED U/S. 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 146 OF 151 209. THE ABOVE RELIEF ARE ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL IN NAT URE INASMUCH THESE EXEMPTIONS WERE DENIED ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE BEING HELD TO BE NOT INVOLVED IN A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. NOW THE IS SUE REGARDING CHARITABLE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEQUENT EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 11, IS DECIDED ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CONSEQUENCES W ILL FOLLOW. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GRANTING CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF THE LAW. 210. GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES IN THE ABOVE TERMS. 211. NO OTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES AN Y SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION BY US. 212. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 2840/AHD/17, I.E. ASSE SSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICAT ED ABOVE. ITA NO. 2841/AHD/17 213. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26 TH OCTOBER 2017 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 214. IN GROUND NOS. 1,2 AND 3, WHICH WE WILL TAKE U P TOGETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 147 OF 151 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF HOLDING THAT THE APP ELLANT IS NOT CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF S ECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF APPLYING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 13(8) OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF DENYING THE EXEMPTIO N CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 215. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS ON THE CORE ISSUE IN T HESE APPEALS BEFORE US, AS SET OUT EARLIER IN THIS ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 55 AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOVE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND BARODA CRICKET ASSO CIATION ON THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE MUST SUCCEED ON THESE POINTS. LEARNED REPR ESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRICKET A SSOCIATION AND BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, THE SAME WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THIS C ASE AS WELL. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THAT EXTENT. 216. GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 ARE THUS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 148 OF 151 217. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GRIEVANCE 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTI ON OF RS.2,55,45,572/- CLAIMED U/S.11(1)(D) OF THE ACT. 218. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS 2,5 5,45,572 REPRESENTS INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAI RLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT CRIC KET ASSOCIATION AND BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AND WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN THE SAID CASE WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL. 219. VIDE OUR DECISION EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, WE HA VE UPHELD SIMILAR CLAIM OF GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND OBSERVED, INTER ALI A, AS FOLLOWS: 51. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BCCI INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY RULES, WE FIND THAT WHAT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS INFRASTRUCTURE SUB SIDY IS REIMBURSEMENT OF 50% OF COSTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ON I NFRASTRUCTURE WHICH IS INHERENTLY IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. THE MERE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A REIMBURSEMENT TO AN OUTSIDE PARTY, SUCH AS A DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCI ATION, DOES NOT REALLY MATTER. AS LONG AS THE SUBSIDY IS RELATABLE TO A CAPITAL AS SET CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN OR BY AN ELIGIBLE DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOC IATION, AS THE PRESENT SUBSIDY UNDISPUTEDLY IS, IT IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF REVENUE RECEIPT AND TAXABLE INCOME. THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS THUS DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. AS SUCH, THE RE CAN HARDLY BE AN ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 149 OF 151 OCCASION, IN PRINCIPLE, TO HOLD SUCH A SUBSIDY AS A REVENUE RECEIPT OR TAXABLE INCOME. THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER OF A DISCUSSION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSIDY IS REVENU E IN NATURE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CLAIM IS MADE FOR THE SUBSIDY ONLY AFTER THE EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO HOLD I T AS AN INCOME. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBSIDY, WHICH IS CLEARLY RELATAB LE TO THE CAPITAL ASSETS GENERATED, WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THIS RECEIPT IN TH E REVENUE FIELD. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT AS WELL AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 2,13,34,033. 220. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, IN PRINCIPLE, IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, AS RELEVANT FACTS NED TO BE EXAMINED, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN TH E LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 221. GROUND NO. 4 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 222. IN GROUND NO. 5 & 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTI ON OF RS.37,85,00,000 CLAIMED U/S.11(2) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 150 OF 151 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTI ON OF RS.8,14,37,615 CLAIMED U/S. 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 223. THE ABOVE RELIEF ARE ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL IN NAT URE INASMUCH THESE EXEMPTIONS WERE DENIED ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE BEING HELD TO BE NOT INVOLVED IN A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. NOW THAT T HE ISSUE REGARDING CHARITABLE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEQ UENT EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11, IS DECIDED ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CON SEQUENCES WILL FOLLOW. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR GRANTING CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 224. GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES IN THE ABOVE TERMS. 225. NO OTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES AN Y SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION BY US. CONCLUSIONS- SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION 226. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 2841/AHD/17, I.E. ASSES SEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICAT ED ABOVE. ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF ITA NOS: 1257/AHD/13, 3303/AHD/16, 3304/AHD/16, 408 /AHD/17 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-1 2 AND 2012-13) ITA NOS: 336 AND 337/AHD/2015 AND 2957/AHD/2014, (A SSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2010-11) ITA NOS: 2839, 2840 AND 2841/ AHD/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13, 2013-14 AND 2014-15) PAGE 151 OF 151 THE SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION ARE THUS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 227. TO SUM UP, ALL THE TEN APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLO WED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 24 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- JUSTICE P P BHATT PRAMOD KUMAR (PRESIDENT) (VICE PRESIDENT) AHMEDABAD, DATED 24 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD