THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. RAJKOT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1

Since the substantial questions of law as proposed by the revenue are common in all the captioned tax appeals, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2 For the sake of convenience, the Tax Appeal No.259 of 2020 is treated to be lead appeal. This tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is at the instance of revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Ahmedabad

dated

in the ITA C/TAXAP/259/2020 ORDER No.2392/Ahd/2017 for A.Y.2012-13. 3 The connected tax appeals are for different assessment years. The assessee in all the Tax Appeals remains common viz. Rajkot Urban Development Authority. 4 The revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court: “[A] “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in considering the activity of the assessee as engaged in the development of urban area of Rajkot which is in the nature of advancement of general public utility not hit by the newly introduced first and second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act?” [B] “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions u/s. 11 without considering the fact that the assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities in nature of business and the activity of the assessee is covered under first and second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act?” [C] “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in C/TAXAP/259/2020 ORDER deleting the addition of Rs.8,43,711/- by not appreciating that the addition to fixed assets has already been allowed in earlier years as application of income which amounts to double deduction? [D] “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of earlier year expenses of Rs.2,38,54,508/- considering that a capital expenditure by a person need not be a capital receipt of the person receiving that amount which the assessee has received for the discharge of its objects?” [E] “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the accumulation of Rs.12,00,00,000/- u/s.11(2) and accumulation @15% of Rs.2,48,78,277/- u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that once the proviso to section 2(15) is applicable, the benefit of section 11 and 12 cannot be allowed further?” 5

We have heard Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue. We need not adjudicate these appeals on merit as the substantial questions of law as proposed are no longer res integra in view of the decision of this High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Assistant C/TAXAP/259/2020 ORDER Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 396 ITR 323. We take notice of the fact that in the common judgment delivered by the appellate Tribunal for different assessment years, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the very same judgment of this High Court.

In view of the above, all the appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) A. B. VAGHELA