KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 354/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 March 2026AY 2016-1734 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, though carried on business principles, were for the advancement of general public utility and not for profit. The proviso to Section 2(15) was found inapplicable as the primary purpose was charitable, not profit generation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, appealed against orders denying exemption under Section 11 for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. The denial was based on the AO and CIT(A) concluding the assessee's activities were commercial and hit by the proviso to Section 2(15).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's activities were commercial in nature, making it ineligible for exemption under Section 11 due to the proviso to Section 2(15). Additionally, issues regarding limitation and disallowances under Section 43B were raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 2(15),Section 13(8),Section 43B,Section 153(1),Section 10(23C)(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(7)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, A BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER These two appeals are filed against the separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi both dated 14/02/2024 in respect of the A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18.

The assessee being the same and also the issues involved in the appeals are almost similar, the appeals are heard together for the sake of convenience and a common order has been passed. The facts in the A.Y. 2016-17 has been taken and the said appeal is taken as the lead case and the decision arrived in the said appeal would apply automatically to the app

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 →