आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं . / ITA Nos.1387 & 975/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Maharashtra Cricket Association, ACIT(E), Pune Gahunje Stadium, At Post Gahunje, Thehsil-Maval, Pune-412101 Vs.

PAN : AAATM2192D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar &

Kiran Sanmane Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 16-01-2025 Date of 11-04-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :

Two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders dated 22.04.2024 and 12.03.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Years (“AYs”) 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since the issue(s) involved are identical, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

ITA No. 1387/PUN/2024, AY 2011-12

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

“1. The learned CTT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,78,07,810 made by the A.O. by denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and thereby taxing the receipts of the assessee trust without appreciating that the said action of the CIT(A) was not justified on facts and in law.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the claim of the assessee trust that the activities of the trust are that of Charitable Nature, and thereby invoking the provisions of amended Section 2(15) wc.101-04- 2009 without appreciating that the said action is not justified on facts and in law.

3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the 12A registration of the assessee trust has duly been restore by the Honorable Pune ITAT vide its order dated 28.08.2014 and the said order has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court therefore, the assessee trust is eligible to claim benefit of section 11 and 12 of the Act.

4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the subsequent assessment proceedings the Revenue has accepted the contention of the assessee trust and allowed exemption u/s 11 to 13 of the Act, therefore, in view of the principle of consistency the learned CIT(A) should have treated the assessee trust as charitable organization eligible for exemption.

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.13,08,01,585 made by the A.O towards T.V. subsidy received from Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) without appreciating that the said addition is not justified on facts and in law.

6. The learned CTT(A) failed to appreciate that the subsidy of Rs.13,08,01,585 received from BCCI was a voluntary grant from the parent body for promotion and development of the game of cricket in Maharashtra and there was no commercial activity involved on the part of assessee trust is concerned, thus, the receipt of subsidy was not a payment for carrying on of any trade, commerce or business and hence, the same should be treated as Voluntary Donation.

7. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the TV subsidy was given to all State Associations and was part of the scheme of BCCI and state associations neither have any role in deciding the quantum of such donation nor compel BCCI to pay such subsidy every year, its BCCI who decides the quantum and frequency of payment hence, there was no commercial character attached to these receipts.

8. The learned CIT(A) also failed in not appreciating that the TV subsidy was granted to all the state associations irrespective of hosting the international matches and the this policy was in existence since last many years.

9. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the IPL Subvention Subsidy of Rs.8,10,43,200 received from BCCI as a commercial receipt in the hands of the assessee trust and thereby denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act without appreciating that the said addition is not justified on facts and in law.

10. T