DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO COMPLEX, HAPUR CHUNGI vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOTIJHEEL, KANPUR

ITA 4580/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 January 2026AY 2012-1317 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disallowing the exemption and the claims for Infrastructure Fund and payment to AwasBandhu. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and High Court judgments in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kanpur Development Authority, claimed exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act on its surplus income. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this exemption, treating the surplus as business income, and also disallowed claims for Infrastructure Fund and payment to AwasBandhu.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's activities qualify as charitable under Section 2(15) and if its surplus is eligible for exemption under Section 11 and 12, and the allowability of payments made to AwasBandhu.

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

Cases cited in this judgment(8)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, DELHI

Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv& Sh. Somil Aggarwal
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 23/12/2025Pronounced: 14/01/2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC' for short), dated 27/05/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of Appeal are as under:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts for the reason that the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate correct facts of the case that the the authority is engaged dominantly in the activity of development and sale of properties.

Besides, it is observed that the aggregate value of receipts

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 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →