{"id":62932,"date":"2026-07-30T15:56:28","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T10:26:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/synthetic-and-art-silk-mills-research-association-v-cit-e-2025-130-itr-13-mumtrib\/"},"modified":"2026-07-30T15:56:28","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T10:26:28","slug":"synthetic-and-art-silk-mills-research-association-v-cit-e-2025-130-itr-13-mumtrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/synthetic-and-art-silk-mills-research-association-v-cit-e-2025-130-itr-13-mumtrib\/","title":{"rendered":"Synthetic and Art Silk Mills Research Association v. CIT (E) (2025) 130 ITR 13 (Mum)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee, a research association approved under section 35(1)(ii), claimed exemption under section 10(21). During reassessment, the AO accepted the claim after considering the assessee&#8217;s eligibility and records, including receipts from auditorium hire charges, hoarding site and service charges and rent. The Commissioner invoked section 263 on the ground that these receipts were not incidental to the objects of the trust and that the AO had failed to make proper enquiries. The Tribunal held that the AO had examined the material on record and adopted a possible view that the impugned receipts were eligible for exemption under section 10(21). Whether such receipts were incidental to the objects of the trust was a debatable issue and, therefore, the assessment order could not be regarded as erroneous merely because the Commissioner held a different view. Accordingly, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was held to be invalid, and the revision order was quashed. The appeal was allowed. [AY.2013-14]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Where the AO, after examining the assessee&#8217;s eligibility for exemption under section 10(21), adopted a possible view that incidental receipts were eligible for exemption, the Commissioner could not invoke section 263 merely because he held a different opinion on a debatable issue. [S.  10(21)]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62932","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gn2","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62932","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62932"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62932\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62933,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62932\/revisions\/62933"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}