IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2406/Del/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11)

Andhra Pradesh Income Tax Officer (E), Technology Development Trust Ward-1(1), Vs. & Promotion Centre, New Delhi.

23-26, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. PAN: AAATA5160B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Ms. Rupali Singh, Adv.

Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/03/2025

O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi [in short “Ld. CIT(A)], vide order u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) dated 15.02.2016 in appeal No. 149/2015-

16/65 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by

ignoring the fact that it has not been able to establish that the

activities w.r.t. intellectual property rights has been for the alleviation

of property and benefited any particular class of people though any concrete evidence.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.”

3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submits that in the case of assessee itself for Assessment Year 2009-10, this issue has been decided by this Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi wherein the issue was set aside to the file ld. CIT(Exemption) with certain directions. Therefore, prayed that the said order may be placed be followed as the facts are identical.

4. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR does not object to the request of the assessee.

5. After considering the facts, we find that in the instant case, in para no.5 of the appellate order. Ld. CIT(A) observed that while allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that in its own case in Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2011-12. It was held that assessee is not involved in commercial and business activities of the assessee and rather in the nature “Relief of the poor”. Hence, proviso to section 2(15) do not applicable to it. We are further gone through the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No.4025/Del/2012 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the AO by making following observations:-

“19. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee is a registered society u/s 12A of the Act and is involved in commercial activities like providing consultancy service to its client in the field of Bamboo management; Waste management by providing technical and infrastructural guidance to clients like municipalities to set up Municipal Solid Waste Management Plants and Intellectual Property Rights activities by providing services for protection of all forms of intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and assists parties with filing, prosecution and registration of patents, trade- marks, designs and copy rights.

20. Admittedly, the society maintains separate books for its commercial activity as required u/s.11(4A) of the Act. We find that the assessee has asserted that its commercial activities are undertaken to fund its rural activities which aim to provide help and guidance to the villagers where funds mobilization for small artisans is always in deficit as Govt. grants are never adequate to meet the expenditure. Admittedly, till 31 March 2009, Financial support to the tune of Rs.11,45,430/- has been provided out of commercial activity to meet commitment for its rural activity. We find that the AO has considered the intellectual property right activity as purely business activity a