PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

PDF · subscribers
ITA/599/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075338200614 January 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Exemption) to pass a fresh order in light of the Supreme Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by urban development authorities against orders of the Income Tax department. Both parties agreed to a resolution based on Supreme Court judgments.

What were the issues?

The core issue revolved around the taxability of income of urban development authorities, to be decided in light of relevant Supreme Court pronouncements.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 201

ITA-599-2006 Date of Decision: 14.01.2026 PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

...Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

…Respondent And

Sr. No. Case No. Appellant Respondent 2. ITA-345-2011 (O&M) Geater Ludhiana Area Development Authority Commissioner of Income Tax-III

3.

ITA-427-2014 Geater Mohali Area Development Authority Commissioner of Income Tax-II

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:- Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate (Through V.C.),

Mr. Aniket Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Sharma for

Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the appellant (in ITA-427-2014)

Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate for the appellant (in ITA-345-2011)

Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate

for respondent-Income Tax

*** DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.01.15 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-599-2006 and connected cases

-2-

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ACIT(E) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority”, (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC) and “CIT Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board”, (2007) 295 ITR 561 (SC), the impugned orders may be set aside and matter be remanded to Commissioner (Exemption) to pass fresh order. 2.

In the wake of statement of both sides, the petitions stand disposed of with a direction to Commissioner (Exemption) to pass fresh order in the light of afore-cited judgments. 3.

The assessee at the first instance will appear before Commissioner (Exemption) on 28.01.2026 at 11:00AM along with requisite documents and thereafter as directed by said authority. 4.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE January 14, 2026 Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.01.15 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →