Mumbai, Feb 19 (Reporter) The Bombay High Court has granted a relief to Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), while quashing the 2009 advisory issued by the Income Tax (IT), by which the latter denied tax exemption as a charitable institution promoting sport and cancelled registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an official said here on Wednesday. The court emphasised that such non-statutory communications cannot be the basis for denying tax exemptions or cancelling registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. A bench of Justices M S Sonak and Jitendra Jain held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) exceeded its jurisdiction by commenting on the merits of the 2009 advisory after ruling that BCCI’s appeal against it was not maintainable. The BCCI, registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, was granted tax exemption under Section 12A on February 12, 1996, as a charitable institution promoting sports. However, amendments to its Memorandum of Association in June 2006 and August 2007 were not informed to tax authorities. On December 28, 2009, the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) informed the BCCI that its registration under Section 12A “does not survive” after the amendments and suggested applying afresh under Section 12AA. Aggrieved, the BCCI challenged this communication before the ITAT, arguing it effectively cancelled the Board’s tax-exempt status without legal authority. The High Court found that ITAT overstepped its jurisdiction. “If, according to the ITAT, the appeal before it was not maintainable, then we fail to comprehend how the ITAT derived jurisdiction to make observations virtually approving the impugned communication,” the court said. The judges further noted contradictions in the Revenue’s stance. “The Revenue cannot adopt such contradictory stances or blow hot and cold in the same breath,” the bench remarked, pointing out that while the IT department called the advisory “non-statutory,” it also used it as grounds for denying tax benefits. The court held that such informal advisories could not be the sole basis for canceling tax exemptions. “If a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all,” the bench observed...////...