GUJARAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the unutilized IDI/fees and the interest earned thereon were advances from the government for development projects and not taxable income under section 2(24)(xviii) or otherwise. It further ruled that the penalty under section 272A was unjustified as the assessee had submitted proof of compliance with the notices through the Income-tax Department's Portal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a government-controlled company, received Infrastructure Development Income (IDI) or fees which it treated as advance grants for future expenditure, retaining unutilized amounts and interest earned on them. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) treated these unutilized funds and interest as the assessee's income. Additionally, the AO levied a penalty under section 272A for alleged non-compliance with notices.
What were the issues?
1. Whether unutilized Infrastructure Development Income (IDI) and interest earned thereon by a government-controlled company constitute taxable income. 2. Whether a penalty for non-compliance with notices under section 272A is sustainable when the assessee claims to have complied.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 270A,Section 272A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] of even date 26/09/2025 passed
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.
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 234B
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
