The primary aim and objective of the assessee according to its memorandum of association, inter alia, was to promote the habitat concept.  The AO held that since the assessee did not maintain separate books of account, its income could not be bifurcated under the principle of mutuality .  The AO taxed the entire surplus in the income and expenditure account . The CIT( A)  allowed the appeal relying upon the judgment of the court in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 1988-89 to 2006-07. The Tribunal held that there was no material change in the fundamental facts for several years and the income of the assessee was to be computed under sections 11 , 12 and 13 and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department.  On appeal  dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that   It was imperative for the Department to establish that there was an element of profit motive in the activities of the assessee, to deny the benefit. If any surpluses had been generated on account of some of the activities of the assessee, it would not ipso facto be determinative of the fact that there was an element of profit motive. No error had been pointed out by the Department with respect to such finding of fact which would disentitle the assessee the benefit under S 2(15) of the Act .( AY.2012-13)