THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/760/2019HC GujaratGJHC24071792201910 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal had merely applied the decision of the High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to the facts of the present case. The appellant did not contend that the Tribunal had wrongly applied this decision. The sole ground raised by the appellant was the pendency of a Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the said decision before the Supreme Court. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, as it was based on a binding precedent of the High Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose warranting interference. The appeal was summarily dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (appellant) has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated April 22, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appeal pertains to assessment year 2012-13 and the previous accounting year 2011-12. The assessee is the Jamnagar Area Development Authority. The appellant's contention is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature and in allowing exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on a prior ruling by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). The appellant noted that a Special Leave Petition against this prior ruling was pending before the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's activities are not in the nature of commerce/trade under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act, without considering that the assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities covered under the first and second provisos to Section 2(15) of the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act of Rs. 89,67,794/- without appreciating that the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act? (Question of law) 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Section 11(2) of the Act of Rs. 2,65,76,340/- without appreciating that the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act? (Question of law) 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Section 11 of the Act on Rs. 4,16,12,646/- (comprising development fund, public contribution, service & amenities fees, and advance for solid waste management projects) without appreciating that the assessee is covered by the provisions of Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act? (Question of law) Assessee's Arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, reiterated the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. The primary contention was that the Tribunal had wrongly applied the decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to the present case, and that a Special Leave Petition against that decision was pending before the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 11,Section 12,Section 2(15),Section 13(8)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 12 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/760/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 760 of 2019 ====================================== THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) Versus JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ====================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 10/12/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1.

By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellant has challenged the order dated 22.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot, Bench 'Rajkot' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 102/Rjt/2016 by proposing the following questions stated to be the substantial questions of law: “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was justified in holding that the activities of the assessee are not in the nature of commerce/trade u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities which is covered under C/TAXAP/760/2019 ORDER first and second provisos to section 2(15) of the Act? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act of Rs.89,67,794/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is covered by the provisions of section 2(15) rws 13(8) of the Act? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions u/s. 11(2) of the Act of Rs.2,65,76,340/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is covered by the provisions of section 2(15) rws 13(8) of the Act? (D) Whether the Appellate Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions u/s. 11 of the Act on Rs.4,16,12,646/- being receipts towards development fund (Rs.38,95,060/-) public contribution (Rs.15,68,250/-) service & amenities fees (Rs.3,63,05,396/-) and advance for solid waste management projects (Rs.3,07,250/-) without appreciating the fact that the assessee is covered by the provisions of section 2(15) rws 13(8) of the Act?”

2.

The assessment year is 2012-13 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year, 2011-12. C/TAXAP/760/2019 ORDER

3.

Heard, Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant who has reiterated the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal.

4.

As can be seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of this court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), (2017) 396 ITR 323 (Guj.) to the facts of the present case. It is not the case of the appellant that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the decision to the facts of the present case. The sole ground put forth is that the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the said decision is pending before the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid premises, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.

5.

For the reasons recorded in the decision of this court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (supra), this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, summarily dismissed. [ Harsha Devani, J. ] [ Sangeeta K. Vishen, J. ] hiren

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →