M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption under Section 10(26BBB). It found that the assessee corporation was incorporated under the Companies Act and not established by a specific Act, failing the primary condition for exemption.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., claimed exemption under Section 10(26BBB) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied this exemption, holding that the corporation was not established by a Central, State, or Provincial Act for the welfare of ex-servicemen.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee corporation, incorporated under the Companies Act, qualifies for exemption under Section 10(26BBB) as an entity established by a Central, State, or Provincial Act for the welfare of ex-servicemen.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(26BBB),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271(1)(c),Section 119(1),Section 158A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- CIT v. Tlarijan Nigam14 citing226 ITR 696 · 1991
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘DB’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, dated 22.11.2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14 arising out of order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) dated 25.02.2015. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:-
That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant corporation was not set up by a central, state or provisional act for the welfare and economic upliftment of ex serviceman being the citizen of India as required u/s. 10(26BBB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That,
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, SuratSurat11 Sept 2023Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Tlarijan Nigam
The Tribunal held that the 'saudha chitthi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned, as the assessee and co-owners denied the transactions and the statement of the person from whom the document was sei...
- Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Surat vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…Surat22 Nov 2022Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Tlarijan Nigam
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the 'saudha chithi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned. The Tribunal also noted that the land transfer had not taken place a...
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, SuratSurat10 May 2022Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Tlarijan Nigam
The Tribunal held that the 'Saudha Chithi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned because it was not found at the assessee's premises, not in their handwriting, and not signed by them. Furthermore, th...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs M/S. U.P. State Construction &…Lucknow28 Nov 2025Remanded
Also relies on CIT v. Tlarijan Nigam
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and restored all disputes to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing an opport...
- M/S.Tamilnadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd… vs DCIT, CC-3(1), ChennaiChennai23 Aug 2024Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Tlarijan Nigam
The Tribunal held that VAT is a tax levied by the State Government under its exclusive domain and is distinct from fees or charges. Therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Act.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
