DELHI CHINMAYA SEWA TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE EXEMPT 1(1), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the development fee is meant for capital assets and not revenue in nature, following its previous decisions.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 challenges the order that treated development & maintenance charges collection of Rs. 43,24,868/- as revenue receipts.
What were the issues?
Whether development and maintenance charges collected by the assessee are to be treated as revenue receipts or capital receipts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
2016-17 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 23.04.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075753071(1), in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Coming to the sole substantive issue herein between the parties, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have assessed the assessee’s development & maintenance charges collection of Rs. 43,24,868/- appellate discussion.
That being the case, learned counsel has first of all filed the Delhi state government’s notification/ order dated 11.02.2009 issued u/s 17 read with section 24 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and draws my attention to its clause no. 14 that such development fee in fact is meant for capital assets than revenue in nature. This tribunal’s order in Maharishi Markandeshwar Trust v. ACIT dated to 1972/Del/2021 has also reiterated the very principle. I, therefore, see no merit in the lower authorities’ findings assessing the impugned development & maintenance charges collection as taxable under the provisions of the Act. Deleted accordingly.
Order pronounced in open court on 20.08.2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026