The assessee, a non-governmental organisation registered under sections 12A, 12AA and 80G, was engaged in social development and welfare activities for upliftment of poor and underprivileged children and women. The Assessing Officer denied exemption under sections 11 and 12, treating these receipts as consultancy fees and contractual income, invoking the proviso to section 2(15). The assessee’s revision petition under section 264 was dismissed. In all preceding assessment years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 and the subsequent assessment year 2018-2019, similar receipts with deductions of tax at source were accepted as charitable in nature and exemption under sections 11 and 12 was granted. On a writ  allowing the petition the Court held  that the sole reason to construe the receipts from donors was founded on the assumption that they were towards professional or technical services or contractual income since tax was deducted under sections 194C and 194J. This alone could not be the only basis to conclude that the receipts were to be considered under the category of consultancy fees and contractual income. There was no element of activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. In the absence of any cogent reason, the receipts in question could not be treated as falling under the sixth limb of section 2(15) “advancement of any other object of general public utility”. If the deductor in its Income-tax return, under misconception, had deducted tax under section 194C and section 194) it would not disentitle the assessee to claim benefit under sections 11 and 12 unless the case of the assessee was specifically hit by the proviso to section 2(15).Rule of consistency was followed. The revenue was directed to grant the exemption. (AY. 2017-18)