ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

143 Taxmann.com 278Supreme Court of India2022#190 most cited

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

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

390

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,250 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority · 143 Taxmann.com 278 · Section 2(15) · Section 11 · general public utility · GPU as business · charitable purpose · income exemption · proviso to Section 2(15) · business income for charity · ploughed back income · Section 12A

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 13(8)section 10(20a)advancement of general public utilityproviso to section 2(15)section 11(4)section 11(4a)section 2(13)section 11(6)section 10(20)section 12aa(3)section 10(46)section 10(23)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

The Tribune Trust, Chandigarh vs. DCIT (Exemptions), C-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 643/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & DR KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 641 to 644/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Tribune Trust, Vs. The DCIT, Sector 29, बनाम Circle-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AAATT2141D अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT ( HYBRID HEARING ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई…

The Tribune Trust, Chandigarh vs. DCIT (Exemptions), C-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 642/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & DR KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 641 to 644/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Tribune Trust, Vs. The DCIT, Sector 29, बनाम Circle-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AAATT2141D अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT ( HYBRID HEARING ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई…

The Tribune Trust, Chandigarh vs. DCIT (Exemptions), C-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & DR KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 641 to 644/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Tribune Trust, Vs. The DCIT, Sector 29, बनाम Circle-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AAATT2141D अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT ( HYBRID HEARING ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Tejmohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई…

M/S Tamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions, Wrd-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1098/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S. Thamizhvel P T Rajan Commemoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, (Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1097/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S. Thamizhvel P T Rajan Commemoration Trust, Mylapore vs. ITO, (Exemptions) Ward 1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1096/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S Thamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO(Exemptions) Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1095/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S Thamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoratiuon Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1094/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S Thamizhvel Pt Rajan Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions, Wrd-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1093/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S Tamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoratiuon Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1092/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S Tamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemmoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1091/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S Thamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO(Exemptions) Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1090/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S Thamizhel Ptp Rajan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1089/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S Thamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO(Exemptions), Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1088/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

M/S Thamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, (Exemptions)Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1087/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

…he decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Halai Namon Association (243 ITR 439) and also in DIT(E) vs. Willington Charitable Trust (330 ITR 24). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278; in short ‘AUDA’) held that argument of GPU activities generating profits which could feed the main object and incidental profit-making also in not a good law. Once GPU is carried on as business, Sec.11 exemption would not be available as business income ploughed back to charity is irrelevant. 3.10 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 12.3, observed…

Infrastructure Development Fund, Chandigarh vs. ACIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 285/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Infrastructure Development Fund, Vs. The Acit बनाम Ayojna Bhawan, Exemptions, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh Haryana, Plot No.3, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh 160018 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 250

…1.7.2020, in Assessee’s own case, 10 285-c-2023 – Infrastructure Development Fund, Chandigarh identical issue was dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority’, 449 ITR 1, dated 19.10.2022. It was held that when a PSU is entitled to very thin margin, it can be treated as a Nodal agency for the entire collection. The relevant extract [page 75 to 76 of Complication of judgement ) from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- "B. Authorities, corporations, or bodies established by statute. B…

Sitaram Bhartia Institute Science & Research, Kolkata vs. D.C.I., Exemption, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1264/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेशकुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1264/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science Vs. DCIT (Exemption), Circle-11(1), & Research Kolkata (PAN: AABTS 8833 N) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent /(!"यथ") Appellant / 05.03.2024 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क% "त'थ Date of Pronouncement/ 22.05.2024 आदेश उ*घोषणा क% "त'थ For the Appellant/ Shri S. Jhajharia, A.R "नधा"0रती क% ओर से Fo…

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 666/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

…on of any activity in the nature of trade. commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in income from such activity. 5.1.4 The Hon,ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the case of ACIT vis Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Le. 449 ITR 1(SC)[19.10.2022] has observed and decided the issue related to the Section 2(15) of the Act as under- II. Section 10(40), read with sections 2(15) and 10(230), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Body. Authority, Board, etc., constituted for benefit of general public (General) - Whether Statutory Corporations, Boards, Authorities, Commissions, etc. (by what…

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 665/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

…on of any activity in the nature of trade. commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in income from such activity. 5.1.4 The Hon,ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the case of ACIT vis Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Le. 449 ITR 1(SC)[19.10.2022] has observed and decided the issue related to the Section 2(15) of the Act as under- II. Section 10(40), read with sections 2(15) and 10(230), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Body. Authority, Board, etc., constituted for benefit of general public (General) - Whether Statutory Corporations, Boards, Authorities, Commissions, etc. (by what…

M/S. Adarsh Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

ITA 142/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

…ITA No.141/Bang/2024 M/s. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust, Bangalore ITA No.142/Bang/2024 M/s. Adarsh Vidya Kendra Trust, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.141/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust Sy.No.69, Pipe Line Road BWSSB Colony Chikkagollarahatti Viswaneedam Post Magadi Main Road Vs. PCIT (Central) Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 091 PAN NO : AABTA9843Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.142/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Adarsh Vidya Kendra Trust 8…