DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

ITA 795/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 August 2025AY 2007-0844 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. This conclusion was based on the existence of deep and pervasive State control, monopoly status conferred or protected by the State, public importance of its functions, and their close relation to governmental functions. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessee fulfills the requirements of Article 12 and 289 of the Constitution. The Tribunal explicitly stated that Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act were irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. The core decision was that the assessee's income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income. All appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and all appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur Bench 'B' involved the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, as the assessee and the Income Tax Department (represented by ACIT/DCIT, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur) as the revenue. The assessment years under consideration spanned from 2003-04 to 2016-17. The appeals arose from orders passed by the National Faceless Appellate Authority (NFAC), Delhi, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue's appeals challenged the CIT(A)'s decisions to allow various expenditures and deductions claimed by the assessee, and to reclassify certain incomes. The assessee's appeals, though not detailed in the provided excerpt, are implied to be allowed by the final outcome.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide several questions of law and mixed law and fact, primarily concerning the taxability of income and the allowability of expenses for the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota. The revenue's grounds of appeal raised the following key issues: 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the benefit of previous orders and directions from the ITAT, which had set aside prior orders. 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing various expenditures claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure, including non-plan development work, Kachhi Basti development, deposit work, vehicle repair, payments to RUIDP, and social welfare expenses. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in excluding amounts collected by the assessee on behalf of Nagar Nigam and the State Government, and deposited to them, from the assessee's total income. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in treating rental income as income from business instead of income from house property. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing deductions for ground rent, conversion charges, and transfer fees, holding they constituted shares of the State Government and Municipal Bodies and were not part of the assessee's income. 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing a portion of 'Other miscellaneous expenses' disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's arguments, as inferred from the revenue's grounds and the Tribunal's decision, likely centered on the nature of the UIT as an instrumentality of the State, exempt from income tax under constitutional provisions, and the correct classification of its receipts and expenditures in light of this status. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) ignored facts, applied incorrect legal principles, and failed to follow ITAT directions. The assessee likely relied on the principle that income of a State instrumentality, under certain conditions, is not taxable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 10(46),Section 10(46A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR

Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &, Mr. Mukesh Soni, Adv. Adv., Ld. ARs
Hearing: 11/08/2025Pronounced: 11/08/2025

These appeals by assessee and revenue are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 22.03.2024, 27.03.2024, 31.03.2024 & 30.0

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(46)

All 104 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(46) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →