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

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/273/2020HC GujaratGJHC24039689202030 September 2020Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that all the substantial questions of law proposed by the Revenue were no longer res integra. The Court found that these questions were squarely covered by its own previous decision in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (Exemption), reported in 2017 396 ITR 323 (Guj.). Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The reasoning implies that the ITAT's order, which allowed the exemptions, was in line with established High Court precedents, rendering the Revenue's grounds of appeal unsustainable. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The ITAT had allowed the assessee, Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority, the benefit of exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue's appeal challenges the ITAT's decision to grant these exemptions, particularly in light of the assessee's alleged widespread commercial activities and the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Act. The appeal also questions the reliance placed by the ITAT on previous High Court decisions and the allowance of capital expenditure and accumulation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of exemptions under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act, considering the assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities and its activities fall under Section 2(15) of the Act, thereby disentitling it to exemptions. - Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's Contention: The assessee is involved in widespread commercial activities, and its activities are covered under Section 2(15), making exemptions under Sections 11 & 12 impermissible. 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by relying on decisions of this Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemption) and CIT Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, which are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. - Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's Contention: The ITAT erred in relying on High Court decisions that are subject to further appeal before the Supreme Court. 3. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of capital expenditure of Rs.23,46,59,657/- and accumulation @15% of Rs.4,92,52,245/- without appreciating that once the proviso to Section 1 & 2 to Section 2(15) is applicable, the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be allowed. - Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's Contention: If Section 2(15) proviso is applicable, exemptions under Sections 11 & 12 are not allowable, and thus capital expenditure and accumulation benefits should not have been granted. 4. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit of Section 11 of the Act by relying on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA No.3621/Ahd/2015, which was not accepted by the Revenue, although no SLP was preferred due to the quantum of tax involved. - Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's Contention: The ITAT relied on a co-ordinate bench decision that the Revenue did not accept, even though further appeal was not pursued due to tax quantum.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/273/2020 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 273 of 2020 ========================================================== THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) Versus GANDHINAGAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ========================================================== Appearance: MR MR BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 30/09/2020

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1 This Tax Appeal is at the instance of the Revenue, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Ahmedabad, in the ITA No.2440/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y.2014-15. 2 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 allowing the benefit of exemptions under sections 11 & 12 of the Act 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 the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and us, exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act is not allowable to the assessee? Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/273/2020 ORDER [B] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing benefit of section 11 of the Act relying on the decisions of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. ACIT (Exemption) in TA No.423 to 425 of 2016 and CIT Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2017) 83 Taxmann.com 366 (Gujarat) which are subject matter of further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and are pending? [C] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing benefit of capital expenditure of Rs.23,46,59,657/- and accumulation @15% of Rs.4,92,52,245/- without appreciating the fact that once the proviso to section 1 & 2 to section 2(15) is applicable, the benefit u/s. 11 and 12 of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee? [D] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal in allowing benefit of section 11 of the Act relying on the decision Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in ITA No.3621/Ahd/2015 which has not been accepted, though further SLP was not preferred on account of the quantum of tax involved? 3 We have heard Mr. M.R.Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and have perused the materials on record. The questions proposed Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/273/2020 ORDER by the Revenue are no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this very Court rendered in the Tax Appeal No.79 of 2020 dated 25.02.2020. All the questions proposed are squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (Exemption), 2017 396 ITR 323 (Guj.). 3 In the result, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) A. B. VAGHELA/P.SUBRAHMANYAM Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →