MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee is an agent of the State of Maharashtra and therefore its interest income on fixed deposits is exempt from tax under Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India. The Revenue's grounds were rendered infructuous.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., earned interest income on fixed deposits. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to accept additional evidence and allow relief to the assessee. The assessee claimed exemption for this interest income based on its status as an agent of the State.
What were the issues?
Whether the interest income earned by the assessee on fixed deposits is exempt from tax as it acts as an agent of the State. Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without proper procedure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Article 289(1), Article 289(2), Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide 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.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT1,372 citing187 ITR 688 · 1991 · SC
- CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation73 citing155 Taxmann.com 228 · 2006 · HC
- City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. ACIT36 citing25 Taxmann.com 333 · 2012
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These two appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee are appeals against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-8, Mumbai, vide order no. CIT(A)-8/IT- Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., AY 2007-08 414/16-17, dated 18.10.2024, against the assessment order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai – 27(3)(1), u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026