Policy Advocacy for EU–India Business Is Charitable Activity u/s 2(15) | ITAT

Case Details: Federation of European Business in India vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 303 (Delhi-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member & Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Accountant Member
• Amol Sinha & Ankit Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Jitender Singh, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a non-profit company, registered under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, filed its Form No. 10AB for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) as it was engaged in ”Advancement of any other objects of general public utility”, which were charitable activities.

The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the request for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) and also cancelled the provisional registration granted for assessment years 2024-25 to 2026-27 on the ground that the assessee was not engaged in any charitable activity as defined under section 2(15).

ITAT Held

On appeal, the Delhi Tribunal held that as per the object of the assessee, it had to promote commerce in India with the European Union business community and to protect & facilitate the interest of the European Union business community in India by advocacy of policy between the European Union business community and the Indian public authorities regarding trade policy, ease of doing business, intellectual property right protection and European union investment protection in India.

It was evident from the assessee’s object that it had to build an overall environment that secures the interests and well-being of the European Union business community, so that they have ease of doing business in India. The issue here was only whether an entity that watches over the business interests of its members can be said to be engaged in charitable activities as defined under section 2(15).

In the given case, it was not the case of the CIT that the assessee was found engaged in any trade and commerce. The assessee was various European business entities, European trade associations, etc. Thus, the CIT was not justified in the eyes of the law by rejecting the registration under section 12A on the reason that the assessee was not doing any charitable activity within the ambit of section 2(15).

List of Cases Reviewed

• CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC)
• Asstt. CIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278/449 ITR 1/[2023] 291 Taxman 11 449 ITR 1
• CIT v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industries [1981] 6 Taxman 7/130 ITR 186 (SC)
• India Trade Promotion Organization v. DIT (Exemptions) [2015] 53 taxmann.com 404/229 Taxman 347/371 ITR 333 (Delhi)
• Confederation of Pharma Dealers Association v. CIT (Exemption) [2022] 137 taxmann.com 117 (Raipur – Trib.)
• Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Dy. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 43 (Kol.-Trib.) (para 13) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC) (para 6)
• Confederation of Pharma Dealers Association v. CIT (Exemption) [2022] 137 taxmann.com 117 (Raipur – Trib.) (para 6)
• Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Dy. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 43 (Kol.-Trib.) (para 6)
• CIT v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industries [1981] 6 Taxman 7/130 ITR 186 (SC) (para 6)
• Dahisar Sports Foundation v. ITO (Exemptions) [2017] 87 taxmann.com 313/167 ITD 710 (Mumbai) (para 6)
• India Trade Promotion Organization v. DIT (Exemptions) [2015] 53 taxmann.com 404/229 Taxman 347/371 ITR 333 (Delhi) (para 6)
• CIT v. Agricultural Produce and Market Committee [2007] 163 Taxman 359/[2007] 291 ITR 419 (Bombay) (para 10)
• DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse [2003] 126 Taxman 365/259 ITR 280 (SC) (para 10)
• CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board [2008] 166 Taxman 58/[2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC) (para 10)
• Asstt. CIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278/449 ITR 1/[2023] 291 Taxman 11 449 ITR 1 (SC) (para 11).