The Crown control Committee in India (BCCI) received a huge amount of relief from the Bombay High Court in connection with a case of tax exemption from the Income Tax Department. The department has previously questioned the status of liberation from the Committee tax.
The Income Tax Department earlier made a great claim that BCCI did not informed the authorities of the amendments to his Memorandum of Association of 2006 and 2007 resulted in loss of tax release.
Huge relief for BCCI High Court in Bombay
The Committee has previously been approved by tax liberation as a charity organization for the promotion of sports in the country. However, the Income Tax Department claimed that the amendments were facilitated by commercial activities associated with the IPL, which violated the basics of the Committee.
State Finance Minister Pankaj Chaudhary presented objections in 2023, while answering the question of whether the Committee enjoys the tax liberation on behalf of the promotion of the cricket, although it was the richest cricket body in the world with an estimated traffic of INR 5300 crown crown crown.
“BCCI claims that the exemption under Article 11 of the 1961 Income Tax Act. However, during the assessment procedure, the exemption was disabled by the Income Tax Department. The thing related to the exemption from BCCI is SUB – Court, “Chaudhary said.
BCCI challenged an attitude before the Appeal Court for Income Tax (Itat) and later through an appeal on income tax and a request for writing before a higher court. Committee claimed that amendments did not change their primary goal of sports promotion.
Bombay High Court examines Itat Command
Itat asserted that the advisory letter did not include an official cancellation order. However, she also claimed that the liberation from the Committee tax could not change its goal of the amendment.
The Bombay High Court bench, led by Judge of MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain, examined the ITAT command and concluded that he exceeded his jurisdiction, discussing the basis of the case after the judgment of the Committee could not be retained.
The court refrained from commenting on merit, but ruled that the revenue department had no authority to issue an advisory letter. Bombay High The court ruled that the status of the Committee exempt should be determined by a formal legal procedure rather than a consultation on the basis of.
Pc chhotaray and suresh kumar defend itat command
Defending Itat order, advocated by PC Chhotaray and Suresh Kumar, representing the tax authorities, claimed that communication from the department did not recall BCCI registration.
They explained that he only informed the Committee that the registration was originally assigned on the basis of its goals, obsolete after these goals have been modified. PC Chattoray also mentioned the failure of the Committee to adhere to his endeavor to inform the CEO for Income Tax (DIT).
As a result, Dit only informed the Committee of the consequences of the change of his goals, namely, the loss of registration. Previously, the Income Tax Department has refused to release tax on the Indian Committee under Article 11 of the IT Act that is involved in charity institutions.
