ACIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

449 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2022#476 most cited

What is ACIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority authority for?

Activities carried out by governmental or quasi-governmental bodies like urban development authorities or industrial development corporations for the advancement of general public utility are not considered to be in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, even if fees or cess are collected. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not attracted, and such bodies are eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

195

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority · ACIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority · Section 2(15) · proviso to Section 2(15) · Section 11 · Section 12 · charitable purpose · advancement of general public utility · trade commerce business · development authority exemption · government body income tax · AUDU SC

Also reported as

329 CTR 297

Sections most often in play

Section 2(15)Section 11Section 143(3)Section 12ASection 12AASection 12Section 13(8)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 10(46)advancement of general public utilitysection 13(8)section 11(4a)proviso to section 2(15)section 10(20)public servantsection 10(23)section 11(6)section 2(15)section 4a

Judgments citing ACIT (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

DCIT(E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI SHANMUKHANANDA FINE ARTS & SANGEETHA SABHA, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 9385/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…eded the permissible limit of 20% of total receipts and cover the cost or consists of nominal mark-up, thereby failing to satisfy the cumulative tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC)." 3 I.T.A. No. 9383/Mum/2025 & I.T.A. No. 9384/Mum/2025 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12, without appreciating that the said decision has not been accepted by th…

DCIT(E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI SHANMUKHANANDA FINE ARTS & SANGEETHA SABHA, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 9384/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…eded the permissible limit of 20% of total receipts and cover the cost or consists of nominal mark-up, thereby failing to satisfy the cumulative tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC)." 3 I.T.A. No. 9383/Mum/2025 & I.T.A. No. 9384/Mum/2025 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12, without appreciating that the said decision has not been accepted by th…

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

…he Act and therefore they are not eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based on section 13(8) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of ACIT(E) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in 449 ITR 1. The Ld.CIT(A) had observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the officers to scrutiny the records to discern whether the nature of appellant's activities amount to trade, commerce or business based on its receipts and income and if it is found that they are in the nature of trade, commerce or business, then it must be examined whether th…

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

…he Act and therefore they are not eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based on section 13(8) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of ACIT(E) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in 449 ITR 1. The Ld.CIT(A) had observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the officers to scrutiny the records to discern whether the nature of appellant's activities amount to trade, commerce or business based on its receipts and income and if it is found that they are in the nature of trade, commerce or business, then it must be examined whether th…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/150/2017HC Rajasthan22 Jan 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

…ITA-150/2017] 2. This Court further proceeded to examine the question in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in [(2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC)] and answered the substantial question No.1 against the Department. Considering that the question No. 1 was answered against the department, the action of treating the income to be a taxable income under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was also held to be consequential and needed no adjudic…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/152/2017HC Rajasthan22 Jan 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

…ITA-150/2017] 2. This Court further proceeded to examine the question in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in [(2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC)] and answered the substantial question No.1 against the Department. Considering that the question No. 1 was answered against the department, the action of treating the income to be a taxable income under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was also held to be consequential and needed no adjudic…

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/284/2010HC Rajasthan22 Jan 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

…ITA-150/2017] 2. This Court further proceeded to examine the question in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in [(2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC)] and answered the substantial question No.1 against the Department. Considering that the question No. 1 was answered against the department, the action of treating the income to be a taxable income under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was also held to be consequential and needed no adjudic…

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [PAN: AAATC5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G.…

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री जगदीश, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [PAN: AAATC5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant by Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प…

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

ITA/599/2006HC Punjab & Haryana14 Jan 2026

Bench: Commissioner (Exemption) On 28.01.2026 At 11:00Am Along With Requisite Documents & Thereafter As Directed By Said Authority. 4.

…ent ITA-599-2006 and connected cases -2- JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. 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-c…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO COMPLEX, HAPUR CHUNGI vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOTIJHEEL, KANPUR

ITA 4580/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

…xemption) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 449 ITR1 (SC) in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and Ors. dated 19/10/2022 reported in 449 ITR 1 (SC) which has settled the issue by dismissing the Revenue's appeal vide Para 254(ii) of the judgment as follows: "....254. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, and summary of conclusions the numerous appeals are disposed of as follows: (i) The revenue's appeals against the Improvement Trust, Moga, the Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust, Bathinda…

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

…nly question that remains is that whether the assessee is entitled to benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act or not, which has been denied by the ld. AO. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [TS-814-SC-2022][2022] 449 ITR 1 (SC) has categorically considered this aspect. The brief facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was the correct interpretation of the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act introduced by the amendment w.e.f. 1.4.2009. The issue was with respect to the residual purpose included by the definition is “advancement of any other object of general public…

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

…tted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in following the earlier decision of this Tribunal dated 11.10.2021which is incorrect. The issue is well settled by the Apex Court decision in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority reported in (2022) 449 ITR 1 vide judgment dated 19/10/2022. Further, the ld. AR submitted that the registration u/s 12A of the Act had been restored by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court by order dated 12.1.2015. Therefore, the assessee is at present registered u/s 12A of the Act. 8. The ld. D.R. on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities…

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…of\nits welfare objects formed the very basis on which the exemption under\nSection 10(46) was granted by the Central Government.\nReliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 1\n(SC) - recognized that Section 10(46) was enacted to specifically exempt\nincome of statutory authorities performing non-commercial public functions.\nThe copy of the Order form part of the Paperbook (Volume-I) from Page\nNo. 50-141. Relevant extract is reproduced below:\n“182.The term "commercial" is closely similar to, if not identical,\nwith th…

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…f\nits welfare objects formed the very basis on which the exemption under\nSection 10(46) was granted by the Central Government.\n\nReliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 1\n17\n\n(SC) - recognized that Section 10(46) was enacted to specifically exempt\nincome of statutory authorities performing non-commercial public functions.\nThe copy of the Order form part of the Paperbook (Volume-I) from Page\nNo. 50-141. Relevant extract is reproduced below:\n\n“182.The term \"commercial\" is closely similar to, if not identical…

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…f\nits welfare objects formed the very basis on which the exemption under\nSection 10(46) was granted by the Central Government.\n\nReliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 1\n\n(SC) - recognized that Section 10(46) was enacted to specifically exempt\nincome of statutory authorities performing non-commercial public functions.\nThe copy of the Order form part of the Paperbook (Volume-I) from Page\nNo. 50-141. Relevant extract is reproduced below:\n\n“182.The term \"commercial\" is closely similar to, if not identical,\nw…

SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SHIMOGA

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2120/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ssed. 8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.” 4. The facts of the other Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are also similar. Therefore, Assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 449 ITR 1, in case of ACIT v/s. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority has passed an order on 19.10.2022 which needs to be considered by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that Assessee has also made an application before the CIT, Shimoga on 11.08.2025 requesting condonation of delay in filing of form no. 10AB for Assessment Year 2016-17 to 2…

SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SHIMOGA

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2119/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ssed. 8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.” 4. The facts of the other Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are also similar. Therefore, Assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 449 ITR 1, in case of ACIT v/s. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority has passed an order on 19.10.2022 which needs to be considered by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that Assessee has also made an application before the CIT, Shimoga on 11.08.2025 requesting condonation of delay in filing of form no. 10AB for Assessment Year 2016-17 to 2…

SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SHIMOGA

In the result all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2118/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ssed. 8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.” 4. The facts of the other Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are also similar. Therefore, Assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 449 ITR 1, in case of ACIT v/s. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority has passed an order on 19.10.2022 which needs to be considered by the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that Assessee has also made an application before the CIT, Shimoga on 11.08.2025 requesting condonation of delay in filing of form no. 10AB for Assessment Year 2016-17 to 2…

THE INDUS ENTREPRENEURS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT - EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 559/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.559/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Indus Entrepreneurs, The Dcit-(Exemption), Vs. Hyderabad-500084. Circle-1(1), Pan Aabat0359F Hyderabad – 500 029. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri M V Swaroop, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Mookambikeyan S. Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M V Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mookambikeyan S. Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…activities which are in relation to rendering services to trade, commerce or business per se cannot be as GPU activities. Further, even in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemptions) vs., Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 449 ITR 389 (SC) while examining the definition of ‘Charitable Purpose’ in light of GPU activities, it was clearly held that, “the predominant purpose of the institution should be considered”. In the present case, the appellant society being engaged in the activities of managing, training and education to entrepreneurs, the same falls under the definition of…

Showing 1–20 of 195 · Page 1 of 10

...