(2008) 9 SCC 434 and Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India

5 SCC 100Reported decision2006#25131 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing (2008) 9 SCC 434 and Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority v. Union of India

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…ed through statutory prescriptions, conditions, and limitations while granting an exemption from taxation. The submission of the assessees, that one has to look only at the objects to determine if it constitutes charitable purpose for Section 100 (2006) 5 SCC 100 55 2(15) of the Act, is to be rejected because exemptions or exclusions are not based on mere objects of trust but on whether the purpose of the trust is “advancement of any other object of general public utility”. III. Analysis and reasoning 92. The history of the statute and the evolving interpretation of “charitable purpose” reveal…

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Exemption) -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 5577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2Section 2(15)

…t decision in the case of MIDC vide order dated 14.8.2018 for the proposition that decision of ITAT in the case of CIDCO is per incurim in as much as Hon'ble Apex Court has already settled the issue in Adityapur Industrial Development Authority Vs. UOI (2006) 5 SCC 100. Thereafter learned Departmental Representative referred to the proviso of section 2(15). He further referred to the amendment in this provision. He referred to the CBDT explanatory note on this issue. Referring to the above, learned Departmental Representative argued that the prescribed limit of receipts from ancillary activity is now only Rs. 25…

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-000792-000793 - 2014Supreme Court02 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 194ASection 3

…urt relying on two judgments of this Court in Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Narela, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, (2008) 9 SCC 434 and Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 5 SCC 100, held that after 01.03.2003 the NOIDA is not a local authority within the meaning of Section 10(20) of the I.T.Act, 1961. The writ petition was consequently dismissed. Although, the appellant had prayed for quashing notices issued to its Bankers and notice under Section 194A but the High Court did not advert to…